Ken Scharf wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote:
Ken Scharf wrote in message ...

I have several ARC-5 rx three gang variable
caps, these have a real nice vernier drive on them. Just attach a
larger dial, or a drive pulley for a slide rule dial and you have
something as nice as the Eddystone.


Yep! Note, however, that except for the 6-9.1 MHz version they have
plate shapes that won't yield a linear dial on the ham bands. The
6-9.1 MHz version is almost pure straight line capacitance, and is
only 62 pf per section or so.

I would think you want a 'stright line frequency' where the capacitance
changes as the square of the rotation. IE: at half open position the
capacitance is down to 1/4 of the value available at full mesh.

That only works with a tuning range of about 2:1. The type of ham band
rx being described has a much more limited tuning range, and needs an
almost-linear capacitance curve to get a linear dial.

For the ultimate, though, use the capacitor from an ARC-5 tx, BC-221
or LM freq meter. Nice gear drives and an even bigger dial than the rx
versions. Only one section though, but good for "unit oscillator"
construction of the HFO. (Only needs to cover the range 5.2-5.7 MHz)

I have a few of those ARC-5 tx caps in my junk box, and at least one
with the dial drive. It binds just a bit though as if the drive shaft
is slightly bent. Just enough to be noticed while turning it with a
good sized knob attached.

Somebody hammered on the shaft to get the knob off, or it was dropped.
Ruined unless you machine a new shaft. *sigh*


With such a design, it would be a good idea to use a Pullen mixer and
no RF stage in the 80/40 bandimage section (at least). There's also
the problem of secondary images - you need a lot of selectivity in the
front end and 1.7 MHz IF section to avoid signals 170 kHz from the
desired one seeping into the second IF. The 2B used a 455 kHz
first-fixed-IF for this reason. IM performance is compromised by the
fact that the selectivity is so far from the antenna.

With a good 'roofing' filter ahead of the final mixer you should be able
to knock down the images from the 1.7mhz if before reaching the 85khz
one.

Exactly!

I have three 1.7mhz double tuned cans available, with all three in
series top coupled with gimick caps I should be able to achieve enough
selectivity to avoid secondary image problems. The use of a 455khz IF
is also a good idea, and I have a few Collins mech. filters that could
be used there as well (a 2.0khz bw out of an R390, a 2.7khz that looks
like an S line filter, and a large unit of 1.8khz bw that came out of an
if adaptor for an HRO-50 or 60).

NICE!

With proper layout and shielding I don't see a problem using the 6AR11
in the two stage IF. Hell, they were designed for use at 47mhz in a
dual stage TV if where cross coupling would be even more of a problem!

Not really. The TV applications were broadband and low gain compared
to what you're trying to do at HF. And the manufacturers could do a
whole bunch of not-obvious tricks and PC board prototypes to get what
they wanted.

The 6AR11 is an excellent semi-remote cutoff amplifier with good
overload and cross mod specs equal to the pentodes used in the HBR.

I agree 100% - it's just that cascading them at 85 kHz may prove
troublesome.

OTOH, in a 455 kHz design where the selectivity comes from the xtal
filters, you may be OK.

Some alternatives to consider:

1) Get some xtals in the 1700 kHz range and build a filter or filters
so that the 85 kHz IF is not needed. Perhaps a variable-bandwidth
filter using a multigang variable capacitor could made, using 4
crystals and a three-gang capacitor. This approach solves the
secondary image problem, too.

2) Have a single tuning range of 3.5 - 4.1 MHz and the fixed IF at 455
kHz or thereabouts. Would require dual conversion on 40 but would also
allow use of standard 455 kHz IF filters. Or make your own from
FT-241A crystals (which is what I did way back when).

3) Use the filters and heterodyne xtals from a junked transceiver as
the basis of a homebrew rx. Hangar-queen/basket case HW-100s, -101s,
and SB-line units show up on ePay and at 'fests for quite low prices -
far below what the filters and xtals would cost separately. Other
types of transceiver can also be good parts sources (Tempo One comes
to mind - nice VFO mechanism in them, and the IF is 9 MHz IIRC). KJ4KV
turned an early-version FT-101 into a pretty interesting receiver this
way.

As for a new design with todays parts, well I have several ideas here
begging to be tried. I have quite a few 'Samples' from Analog Devices
including many DDS chips. The 400mhz DDS parts would make a great HFO
for a single conversion receiver with an IF at 9mhz (again more junkbox
filters, including about 1/2 dozen 9mhz 3.2khz 8 pole units out of
Gonset Sidewinder rigs purchased at Dayton years ago).

The big question with DDS is the spectral purity of the output. Even
weak artifacts can cause all kinds of birdies and other troubles in
today's RF environment. This is one reason so many folks find the old
designs so appealing - they are "clean" except for the obvious things
like images.

Thought I'd use
three IF stages with a filter between EACH stage and a final one before
the detector.

Very good idea. The best filter goes first, then "cleanup" filters.

Probably use MC1350's or ancient CA3028's as the IF amps.
The front end would use a quad DFET (Siliconix) switching mixer that
was in the handbook for several years driven at twice the required HFO
frequency (to get push-pull drive using a D Flipflop). Bowing to the
junkbox, the front end would be a double or triple tuned filter using
toriods bandswitched using a standard coil tuner chassis as the switch.
(The toriods fit nicely in the tuner strips). An 8051 series micro
drives the DDS, frequency display on 7 segment LEDs (I have enough of
these to choke an alligator) and a rotary encoder drives the micro to
select frequency.

And the LEDs glow!

Maybe I'm crazy, but I still wonder about puting in a second conversion
down to 85khz to use those ARC5 IF cans! Anything wrong with a hybrid
radio using the latest IC's and microprocessors along with 60's
compactrons! (Just what kind of bandwidth will a properly aligned 85khz
if strip using arc5 cans give?)

The original design gave a decent SSB passband if the rods were pulled
up. But the shape factor isn't the best and the selectivity winds up
so far from the antenna....

The above radio would probably end up being a transceiver (cause the
extra circuity isn't much) but the finals would end up being 1 or 2 1625
bottles 'cause I have at least a dozen of 'em in the junk box.

Great bottles but the sockets are a pain. Unless you hack up an ARC-5
tx.

The biggest headache I've encountered in transceiver design is finding
a heterodyne combination that works in both directions and uses
available components. All of the classic ones are compromises in one
way or another, either on rx or tx.

73 de Jim, N2EY