[R-390] Re: R-390 Digest, Vol 10, Issue 17

[JGolden365 at aol.com]

The radioman's story was a great read.  Upon being called to active duty in 1964 I reported to DDG-5 in Norfolk as an SN and was immediately assigned to the deck division.  When the CO overheard me telling an RM3 that I had a 51J-4 at home he immediately asked me to strike for RM and to sweeten the pot offered me the radio shack instead of chipping paint.  No dice.  I was transferred to PAMILANTFLT as a computer tech two months later.   The J-4 is gone now but I remember that experience every time I look at my R390A.






In a message dated 2/13/2005 1:51:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, r-390-request at mailman.qth.net writes:

>Send R-390 mailing list submissions to
>    r-390 at mailman.qth.net
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>    http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>    r-390-request at mailman.qth.net
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
>    r-390-owner at mailman.qth.net
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of R-390 digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: The Penultimate R-390* Ballast Replacement (Tom Norris)
>   2. Trip down R-390 memory lane,  a Navy Radioman story from the
>      operator side of the R-390 world (Tom Chirhart)
>   3. Boonton Rx Meter (David C. Hallam)
>   4. Re: Trip down R-390 memory lane,  a Navy Radioman story from
>      the operator side of the R-390 world (Bob Camp)
>   5. Re: The Penultimate R-390* Ballast Replacement
>      (ToddRoberts2001 at aol.com)
>   6. Re: The Penultimate R-390* Ballast Replacement (Bruce Hagen)
>   7. Re: The Penultimate R-390* Ballast Replacement (John KA1XC)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 04:29:08 -0600
>From: Tom Norris <r390a at bellsouth.net>
>Subject: Re: [R-390] The Penultimate R-390* Ballast Replacement
>To: R-390 at mailman.qth.net
>Message-ID: <p0620071abe34cf4b6cd0@[10.0.1.2]>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
>
>You win, Bob.
>
>Unless someone comes up with a story about a system involving a radio links to
>the Fleet Ballast Mate's central location where he remotely monitors and
>corrects *all* the R-390(*)s in the battle group. Communication could be by
>shutter-light or carrier pigeon rather than rf link during times of 
>radio silence.
>The Galley would have a stock of Kielbasa and Lutefisk on hand so the ET's may
>manually replace the ballasts in the unlikely event the automatic system fails.
>
>----------
>
>USMC ET's, lacking any logistics support from the Navy, discover a method of
>replacing failed ballasts with a combination of twigs and rocks and 
>find the current
>regulation of their field expedient ballast to be superior to the 
>original 3TF7.
>The Navy takes credit for the discovery.
>
>----------
>
>USAF specs require systems containing R-390(*)'s include an AC regulator
>or constant voltage transformer for the AC mains, thus eliminating any problem
>before it has a chance to occur. Entire system must be dismantled every six
>months so voltage stabilization system can be calibrated and certified by PMEL.
>
>Tom NU4G
>
>
>          Bob Camp sez ---
>>Hi
>>
>>You missed the point, these radios were used by the Navy. All this 
>>stuff does not sound battleship compatible.
>>
>>You pick the current off with a reasonable sized magnetic amplifier 
>>and then feed it into an amplidyne. The amplidyne feeds the field 
>>winding on a reasonable motor generator set (say 30 HP, they are a 
>>common item ...). The output of the motor generator drives a DC 
>>motor that runs an alternator. The alternator drives a variac. The 
>>variac feeds an isolation transformer that plugs in to drive the 
>>ballast tube string.  The whole thing is manually corrected twice an 
>>hour by a ballast man's mate third class. The correction is done via 
>>a pneumatic link to a control panel three decks away.
>>
>>It's really the only way to do it if you think about it.
>>
>>   Enjoy!
>>
>>       Bob Camp
>>       KB8TQ
>>
>>
>>On Feb 12, 2005, at 6:35 PM, Tom Norris wrote:
>>
>>>Simplified Block diagram of the Amazingly Complex Ballast
>>>Replacement Unit (ACBRU) --
>>>http://www.fernblatt.net/R390/superballast.jpg
>>>
>>>Could build a simple comparator circuit driving a
>>>stepper motor controller that in turn is coupled
>>>to a motor driven multi-turn pot, but that wouldn't be
>>>much of a challenge.
>>>
>>>Better results could be had using a tube based servo
>>>amp with chopper amp a`la T-195 autotune circuit with
>>>selsyns vs newfangled stepper motors. 400 Hz dynamotor
>>>optional.
>>>
>>>The Rube Goldberg Award to anyone that samples the
>>>filament current, feeds it to a voltage to freq circuit,
>>>which feeds an AFC circuit similar to the CV-157, complete
>>>with spinning disk to indicate "live" ballast error adjustment.
>>>
>>>All of these would require an external chassis, preferably
>>>rack mounted. Why use a simple resistor when you can do
>>>something like this??????
>>>
>>>ahem
>>>
>>>Time for my medication, or a stiff drink, or both.
>>>
>>>Tom NU4G
>>>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 08:37:08 -0500
>From: "Tom Chirhart" <sparks at codepoets.com>
>Subject: [R-390] Trip down R-390 memory lane,   a Navy Radioman story
>    from the operator side of the R-390 world
>To: "'Tom Norris'" <r390a at bellsouth.net>, <R-390 at mailman.qth.net>
>Message-ID: <000001c511d1$1d302a20$6401a8c0 at sparks>
>Content-Type: text/plain;   charset="us-ascii"
>
>A trip back down memory lane, delete if you don't want to read about the
>operator side of a Navy Radioman and R-390 user...long winded
>
>Not to offend the potential Navy Electronics Technician (ET) that is on
>the list, but I was on Radioman (RM) on a tin can (destroyer DD-938) and
>when we were about to leave port the bridge announced on the 1MC, (ships
>announcement system), "Underway Shift Colors", most of our ET's did too
>and retired to their racks. One even lived in the ET shop, and was
>normally so sick he strung a hammock across the space and rocked himself
>to sleep and lived there on crackers. No he didn't make the Navy a
>career, he went back to Minnesota.  (Herbie, hope you're not on this
>list..or are you?...you were always sick) None of the techs wanted to
>pull an R-390 from the rack in the rough seas most tin cans experienced
>so we'd log the equipment down, call an ET and grab another receiver,
>(if we had a spare). Removing an R-390 was a two man job, in a cramped
>space. There was evidence of damage from "slightly dropped" R-390's with
>gouges in the deck or operator position desk top from those pointed case
>corners... ooops... and dents on top of the "Mill" (typewriter) at the
>CW operators position... it was bad enough in port or in light seas, but
>bad went to worse on a North Atlantic patrol in winter or in stormy
>weather. The ET's paid the price when we hit port, no liberty call for
>them until the Preventive Maintenance and Repairs were done...same went
>for us RM's... but there was nothing to stop the ET from tagging the
>gear out as Inop Awaiting Parts then go order a ballast tube or
>something else and scurry off the ship on liberty. Our (ET and RM)
>biggest worry was when we would loose power when a SSG (Ships Service
>Generator) would fail and the lights would go out... it was a case of
>"lets see what gear won't come back up". I don't recall one time that
>the 390's failed.  CW was already gone at this time, the Navy pulled our
>only WRT-1 MF transmitter and replaced it with SATCOM gear. We still had
>to monitor 500 KHz for distress traffic and keep the 5 minute entries
>and twice hourly silent periods, but had no way to communicate with a
>ship in distress if we had to. We retained CW drills on HF, when in port
>or at refresher training. Morse code was no longer a requirement in RM
>school, it was open for volunteers, or if there were not enough to fill
>a class you were volunteered... those that graduated carried the NEC
>2304 qualifications code.
>The snipes down in the machinery spaced didn't like Radiomen because we
>had cool spaces to work in and their normal 135 degree environment "down
>there" was wicked so when things went to he!! up in Radio Central they
>probably smiled. That was in the tube Navy, a long time ago.. there may
>be ET's left but the Radioman rating is gone and I believe the sparks in
>the rating badge is gone too... During my first week on that tin can I
>had a one-on-one collision with the Captain (Commander O-5), RM3 VS O-5,
>all over CW... but I'll relate that story another time..
>One item to point out... the R-390's we had on the tin can I was on had
>an off green/grey front panel, not the typical Collins grey face, can't
>remember the manufacturer of the ones we had. Would love to find one of
>these green/grey faced 390's, anyone got one? 
>Keep em glowin'
>73
>#0001
>BT
>NNNN
>Tom K4NCG, RMC USN/USCG retarded...err retired..
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 08:37:14 -0500
>From: "David C. Hallam" <dhallam at rapidsys.com>
>Subject: [R-390] Boonton Rx Meter
>To: "R-390 List" <r-390 at mailman.qth.net>
>Message-ID: <NFBBJDPKCPDDNNAFOPDGMEGKDEAA.dhallam at rapidsys.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain;   charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>Does anyone know where I can get a copy of the maintenance and calibration
>manual for a Boonton 250A Rx meter?  I have downloaded a copy of the
>operating manual from the BAMA site but they do not have the maintenance
>manual.
>
>David C. Hallam
>KC2JD
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 4
>Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 10:03:10 -0500
>From: Bob Camp <ham at cq.nu>
>Subject: Re: [R-390] Trip down R-390 memory lane,   a Navy Radioman
>    story from the operator side of the R-390 world
>To: Tom Chirhart <sparks at codepoets.com>,    R-390 HF Receiver List
>    <r-390 at mailman.qth.net>
>Message-ID: <1e0c3c5d20818d07c9fb38b19b82c0ad at cq.nu>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
>Hi
>
>Very interesting !!!
>
>One of the things we need more of on the list is more "as used" 
>information on these radios. A lot of this kind of stuff is very poorly 
>documented elsewhere. Trying to re-construct it in the future will just 
>get harder as memories fade.
>
>    Take Care!
>        
>        Bob Camp
>        KB8TQ
>
>
>On Feb 13, 2005, at 8:37 AM, Tom Chirhart wrote:
>
>> A trip back down memory lane, delete if you don't want to read about 
>> the
>> operator side of a Navy Radioman and R-390 user...long winded
>>
>> Not to offend the potential Navy Electronics Technician (ET) that is on
>> the list, but I was on Radioman (RM) on a tin can (destroyer DD-938) 
>> and
>> when we were about to leave port the bridge announced on the 1MC, 
>> (ships
>> announcement system), "Underway Shift Colors", most of our ET's did too
>> and retired to their racks. One even lived in the ET shop, and was
>> normally so sick he strung a hammock across the space and rocked 
>> himself
>> to sleep and lived there on crackers. No he didn't make the Navy a
>> career, he went back to Minnesota.  (Herbie, hope you're not on this
>> list..or are you?...you were always sick) None of the techs wanted to
>> pull an R-390 from the rack in the rough seas most tin cans experienced
>> so we'd log the equipment down, call an ET and grab another receiver,
>> (if we had a spare). Removing an R-390 was a two man job, in a cramped
>> space. There was evidence of damage from "slightly dropped" R-390's 
>> with
>> gouges in the deck or operator position desk top from those pointed 
>> case
>> corners... ooops... and dents on top of the "Mill" (typewriter) at the
>> CW operators position... it was bad enough in port or in light seas, 
>> but
>> bad went to worse on a North Atlantic patrol in winter or in stormy
>> weather. The ET's paid the price when we hit port, no liberty call for
>> them until the Preventive Maintenance and Repairs were done...same went
>> for us RM's... but there was nothing to stop the ET from tagging the
>> gear out as Inop Awaiting Parts then go order a ballast tube or
>> something else and scurry off the ship on liberty. Our (ET and RM)
>> biggest worry was when we would loose power when a SSG (Ships Service
>> Generator) would fail and the lights would go out... it was a case of
>> "lets see what gear won't come back up". I don't recall one time that
>> the 390's failed.  CW was already gone at this time, the Navy pulled 
>> our
>> only WRT-1 MF transmitter and replaced it with SATCOM gear. We still 
>> had
>> to monitor 500 KHz for distress traffic and keep the 5 minute entries
>> and twice hourly silent periods, but had no way to communicate with a
>> ship in distress if we had to. We retained CW drills on HF, when in 
>> port
>> or at refresher training. Morse code was no longer a requirement in RM
>> school, it was open for volunteers, or if there were not enough to fill
>> a class you were volunteered... those that graduated carried the NEC
>> 2304 qualifications code.
>> The snipes down in the machinery spaced didn't like Radiomen because we
>> had cool spaces to work in and their normal 135 degree environment 
>> "down
>> there" was wicked so when things went to he!! up in Radio Central they
>> probably smiled. That was in the tube Navy, a long time ago.. there may
>> be ET's left but the Radioman rating is gone and I believe the sparks 
>> in
>> the rating badge is gone too... During my first week on that tin can I
>> had a one-on-one collision with the Captain (Commander O-5), RM3 VS 
>> O-5,
>> all over CW... but I'll relate that story another time..
>> One item to point out... the R-390's we had on the tin can I was on had
>> an off green/grey front panel, not the typical Collins grey face, can't
>> remember the manufacturer of the ones we had. Would love to find one of
>> these green/grey faced 390's, anyone got one?
>> Keep em glowin'
>> 73
>> #0001
>> BT
>> NNNN
>> Tom K4NCG, RMC USN/USCG retarded...err retired..
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _____________________________________________________________
>> R-390 mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/faq.htm
>> Post: mailto:R-390 at mailman.qth.net
>> Unsubscribe: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/options/r-390
>>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 5
>Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 12:54:41 EST
>From: ToddRoberts2001 at aol.com
>Subject: Re: [R-390] The Penultimate R-390* Ballast Replacement
>To: r-390 at mailman.qth.net
>Message-ID: <19e.2e3c052e.2f40ee61 at aol.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
>Most of the 3TF7 substitutes I have read about involve buildng something 
>small enough to plug directly into the 3TF7 socket or on a nearby bracket. This 
>comes with problems of heat dissipation or else installing unsightly brackets 
>near the I.F. subchassis. Some of the recent ideas got me thinking - Why not 
>build a small separate power supply module with a 
>well-regulated/filtered/bypassed 12.6 VDC output that could be placed next to the receiver and the only 
>connection would be a small umbilical cable with a 9-pin plug that plugs directly 
>into the 3TF7 socket? You could run the umbilical through the side of the R390A 
>chassis thru one of the large holes and tuck the power supply and cord out of 
>the way next to the receiver. This layout is similar to the way some 
>audiophile preamps use a separate power-supply module with an umbilical. You could 
>modify one or two pins of the 3TF7 socket with a jumper to ground to provide a 
>ground return for the 12.6VDC so you wouldn't have to tie down a separate ground 
>lead with a terminal and screw somewhere else on the chassis. When you plug 
>in the umbilical it breaks the 25.2 VAC circuit and connects the 12.6VDC 
>circuit and ground. The ground pins would have no effect on the original 3TF7 if you 
>wanted to plug one back in.  This way you could build a nice little husky 
>separate  regulated/filtered/bypassed 12.6 VDC power supply and not have to 
>miniaturize it or compromize the performance. If you want to go back to a 3TF7 just 
>unplug the DC supply 9 pin plug and put the 3TF7 back in. No unsightly 
>permanent wires or brackets hanging off the I.F. subchassis.  The regulated DC 
>supply should give the ultimate in stability and pure DC on the filaments of the 
>BFO/PTO tubes. 73 Todd WD4NGG 
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 6
>Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 13:28:21 -0800
>From: "Bruce Hagen" <bhagen at msn.com>
>Subject: Re: [R-390] The Penultimate R-390* Ballast Replacement
>To: <r-390 at mailman.qth.net>, <ToddRoberts2001 at aol.com>
>Message-ID:
>    <20050213182821.TBG21849.mta10.adelphia.net at audio-mfgsfzhqj>
>Content-Type: text/plain;   charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>I find myself somewhat mystified with all of the ballast tube solutions. 
>Most very clever and well thought out but were am I missing it? It seems to 
>me that an inch or so of wire bent into a "U" shape for the ballast and then 
>pulling two 6.3 volt tubes and replacing them with two readily available and 
>cheap 12.6 volt tubes is the logical and easiest solution if you do not want 
>to spend a few dollars and buy a 3TF7. Bruce
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: <ToddRoberts2001 at aol.com>
>To: <r-390 at mailman.qth.net>
>Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 9:54 AM
>Subject: Re: [R-390] The Penultimate R-390* Ballast Replacement
>
>
>> Most of the 3TF7 substitutes I have read about involve buildng something
>> small enough to plug directly into the 3TF7 socket or on a nearby bracket. 
>> This
>> comes with problems of heat dissipation or else installing unsightly 
>> brackets
>> near the I.F. subchassis. Some of the recent ideas got me thinking - Why 
>> not
>> build a small separate power supply module with a
>> well-regulated/filtered/bypassed 12.6 VDC output that could be placed next 
>> to the receiver and the only
>> connection would be a small umbilical cable with a 9-pin plug that plugs 
>> directly
>> into the 3TF7 socket? You could run the umbilical through the side of the 
>> R390A
>> chassis thru one of the large holes and tuck the power supply and cord out 
>> of
>> the way next to the receiver. This layout is similar to the way some
>> audiophile preamps use a separate power-supply module with an umbilical. 
>> You could
>> modify one or two pins of the 3TF7 socket with a jumper to ground to 
>> provide a
>> ground return for the 12.6VDC so you wouldn't have to tie down a separate 
>> ground
>> lead with a terminal and screw somewhere else on the chassis. When you 
>> plug
>> in the umbilical it breaks the 25.2 VAC circuit and connects the 12.6VDC
>> circuit and ground. The ground pins would have no effect on the original 
>> 3TF7 if you
>> wanted to plug one back in.  This way you could build a nice little husky
>> separate  regulated/filtered/bypassed 12.6 VDC power supply and not have 
>> to
>> miniaturize it or compromize the performance. If you want to go back to a 
>> 3TF7 just
>> unplug the DC supply 9 pin plug and put the 3TF7 back in. No unsightly
>> permanent wires or brackets hanging off the I.F. subchassis.  The 
>> regulated DC
>> supply should give the ultimate in stability and pure DC on the filaments 
>> of the
>> BFO/PTO tubes. 73 Todd WD4NGG
>> _____________________________________________________________
>> R-390 mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/faq.htm
>> Post: mailto:R-390 at mailman.qth.net
>> Unsubscribe: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/options/r-390
>> 
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 7
>Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 13:41:20 -0500
>From: "John KA1XC" <tetrode at comcast.net>
>Subject: Re: [R-390] The Penultimate R-390* Ballast Replacement
>To: "R-390 reflector" <r-390 at mailman.qth.net>
>Message-ID: <000d01c511fb$9c9e9830$7c629318 at compy2>
>Content-Type: text/plain;   charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>Sounds good Todd.
>The 12.6 VDC supply doesn't even need to be husky, for only a 300 ma load
>any of the common 78xx style 3 or 4 terminal regulators in the TO-220
>packages would suffice, and even the best regulator would only need a 723
>and a pass transistor. I wouldn't even bother with connecting the ground
>return to the ballast tube socket, just use any chassis ground connection on
>the back panel.
>
>I've read all kinds of over-worrying about electronic regulator "noise" or
>oscillations from voltage regulator IC's in radios, but it's really a
>non-issue. As long as you follow the bypassing suggestions in the app notes
>for the part, use good parts, and check things with a scope it'll be fine.
>
>Only *once* did I have a problem with a 3 term regulator inside an HF
>receiver. My TMC GPR-90 has a whole bunch of solid state mods and has a +/-
>12 VDC regulated supply under the chassis to run them. After I installed it
>I heard some 300 kHz carriers that I didn't hear before. It turned out to be
>one of the 3 terminal regulators oscillating (and I hadn't followed my own
>advice about checking it with a scope!) which happened to be a TI part. Took
>it out and installed a Motorola device in its place and it's been clean for
>years.
>
>John
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: <ToddRoberts2001 at aol.com>
>To: <r-390 at mailman.qth.net>
>Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 12:54 PM
>Subject: Re: [R-390] The Penultimate R-390* Ballast Replacement
>
>
>> Most of the 3TF7 substitutes I have read about involve buildng something
>> small enough to plug directly into the 3TF7 socket or on a nearby bracket.
>This
>> comes with problems of heat dissipation or else installing unsightly
>brackets
>> near the I.F. subchassis. Some of the recent ideas got me thinking - Why
>not
>> build a small separate power supply module with a
>> well-regulated/filtered/bypassed 12.6 VDC output that could be placed next
>to the receiver and the only
>> connection would be a small umbilical cable with a 9-pin plug that plugs
>directly
>> into the 3TF7 socket? You could run the umbilical through the side of the
>R390A
>> chassis thru one of the large holes and tuck the power supply and cord out
>of
>> the way next to the receiver. This layout is similar to the way some
>> audiophile preamps use a separate power-supply module with an umbilical.
>You could
>> modify one or two pins of the 3TF7 socket with a jumper to ground to
>provide a
>> ground return for the 12.6VDC so you wouldn't have to tie down a separate
>ground
>> lead with a terminal and screw somewhere else on the chassis. When you
>plug
>> in the umbilical it breaks the 25.2 VAC circuit and connects the 12.6VDC
>> circuit and ground. The ground pins would have no effect on the original
>3TF7 if you
>> wanted to plug one back in.  This way you could build a nice little husky
>> separate  regulated/filtered/bypassed 12.6 VDC power supply and not have
>to
>> miniaturize it or compromize the performance. If you want to go back to a
>3TF7 just
>> unplug the DC supply 9 pin plug and put the 3TF7 back in. No unsightly
>> permanent wires or brackets hanging off the I.F. subchassis.  The
>regulated DC
>> supply should give the ultimate in stability and pure DC on the filaments
>of the
>> BFO/PTO tubes. 73 Todd WD4NGG
>> _____________________________________________________________
>> R-390 mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/faq.htm
>> Post: mailto:R-390 at mailman.qth.net
>> Unsubscribe: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/options/r-390
>>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>R-390 mailing list
>R-390 at mailman.qth.net
>http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390
>
>
>End of R-390 Digest, Vol 10, Issue 17
>*************************************
>