Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
To me it looks like a radio out of a chicken coop with a label and some
propaganda to make it seem like it's valuable.. So what if Fermi touched it? http://cgi.ebay.com/1949-University-...QQcmdZViewItem -- Thanks & 73 Hank WD5JFR |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Henry Kolesnik wrote:
To me it looks like a radio out of a chicken coop with a label and some propaganda to make it seem like it's valuable.. So what if Fermi touched it? http://cgi.ebay.com/1949-University-...QQcmdZViewItem Well, why would anyone have ultimate confidence that it is the same receiver, at all? Sans a record of the serial number purchased/assigned to the project, there is simply no telling. Secondly, the "cyclotron" decal is affixed on top of some chassis blemish not visible of the historical photo. The new-looking, unmolested-by-time decal was obviously installed some time after the blemish appeared, who knows when. Sorry folks, this one would not pass the authenticity sniff test much less pass muster on the "Road Show". de K3HVG |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hey, my SX-42 has been fully restored and has the correct speaker as well as
a cabinet. And it has been touched by Phil Nelson :-) Maybe I should put it on eBay with a BIN price of $2000+ ! http://www.antiqueradio.org/halli07.htm Phil |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Phil Nelson wrote: Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 12:05:04 -0700 From: Phil Nelson Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors Subject: SX-42 for $2250.00 how did I miss it? Hey, my SX-42 has been fully restored and has the correct speaker as well as a cabinet. And it has been touched by Phil Nelson :-) Maybe I should put it on eBay with a BIN price of $2000+ ! http://www.antiqueradio.org/halli07.htm Phil At prices like that, I'd seriously consider building reproductions from new materials and use NOS tubes. ;-) |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Can any one explain the rationale behind using both octal and loctal tubes in
the SX-42? 73 Tony I0JX |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Antonio Vernucci wrote:
Can any one explain the rationale behind using both octal and loctal tubes in the SX-42? Loctal tubes were really cheap on the surplus market at the time? --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
... Antonio Vernucci wrote: Can any one explain the rationale behind using both octal and loctal tubes in the SX-42? Loctal tubes were really cheap on the surplus market at the time? I believe the lone Loctal tube was a 7F8; at least this the tube used in my SX-43. If you want to read more about this particular tube, check out the volume on components from the MIT Radiation Laboratory series. If memory serves, this dual triode was rated to much higher frequencies than any dual triode that had an octal base. These tubes are still available NOS. However, if you are willing to make an adapter or rewire the receiver, I believe a 12AT7 can be used. Of course, if you want "museum quality", which I think is rather foolish, use the 7F8. 73, Dr. Barry L. Ornitz WA4VZQ |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Antonio Vernucci" wrote in message ... Can any one explain the rationale behind using both octal and loctal tubes in the SX-42? 73 Tony I0JX Some locktal tubes had quite low interelectrode capacitance compared to their octal equvalents due to the stem seal base with shorter leads than octals. They were also quite rugged since they were originally intended for automobile receivers and some had less microphonics. Remember, locktals predated miniature tubes but had some of the advantages of miniatures due to the method of bringing the leads out. Good engineering practice is to use as few variations of parts as possible but Hallicrafters never seems to have been concerned with it. I rather think their philosophy was that people would use a piece of their equipment until the new model came out. One can find a lot of advanced technology in Hallicrafters stuff, like the use of acorn tubes, beam switching tubes, pentode RF power tubes, etc, but often not applied very well. -- -- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles WB6KBL |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Oct 25, 10:28*am, "Antonio Vernucci" wrote:
Can any one explain the rationale behind using both octal and loctal tubes in the SX-42? 73 Tony I0JX I don't think there was an obvious rationale behind some Hallicrafters tube lineup choices. The SX-110 was introduced in 1959 and made through the 60's, but was using metal octal tubes - reminiscent of the 1930's - when the rest of the world (and other Hallicrafters models) had switched to miniatures. Tim. |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Oct 23, 2:22 pm, "Henry Kolesnik"
wrote: To me it looks like a radio out of a chicken coop with a label and some propaganda to make it seem like it's valuable.. So what if Fermi touched it?http://cgi.ebay.com/1949-University-...fters-SX-42-HI... -- Thanks & 73 Hank WD5JFR Biggest piece of Junk I ever saw. So Fermi touched, he touched plenty of other things that I would'nt buy either. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
FS Spare parts for Plessey PR-2250 receiver | Swap | |||
FS Spare parts for Plessey PR-2250 receiver | Shortwave | |||
FS Spare parts for Plessey PR-2250 receiver | Equipment | |||
FS Spare parts for Plessey PR-2250 receiver | Equipment | |||
FS Spare parts for Plessey PR-2250 receiver | Equipment |