Heathkit HW-9 Dial Error
 

Michael Black wrote:
On Wed, 6 May 2009, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

COLIN LAMB wrote:
Hello Fred:

"I think I'll just leave well enough alone!"

Wisdom comes from not leaving well enough alone.

Greater wisdom comes when you realize you should have left well enough
alone.

But true experience comes from reaching the point that you have gone too
far, stopping just before it and figuring out another way to do it.

For example, noting the correct calibration, removing the dial face,
scanning
it into a computer and fixing it with photoshop.

In the old days, it would be done with a grease pencil, later a felt tip
marker, and for the really precise dry-rub lettering. Now you can do most
of the work on the computer.

No, no, no. That's too fancy.

In the old days, you'd get some graph paper, and make a chart to go with
the rig.

Michael VE2BVW


Me, I'd just make sure the 000-050 part of the scale reads out
accurately. After all its a CW xcvr.

-Bill

Heathkit HW-9 Dial Error
 

In article ,
Bill M wrote:

Me, I'd just make sure the 000-050 part of the scale reads out
accurately. After all its a CW xcvr.

Bill-

That part of the dial is relatively accurate. The problem is more
serious in the WARC bands, where the dial is close to 10 KHz off.

If the dial is adjusted for 100 KHz to be accurate, the 30 Meter band
will be accurate at the low end. If the dial is set to anything below
100 KHz, the actual frequency would be higher than indicated, therefore
inside each non-WARC band.

The only problem then is the 12 Meter band. At 24.890 MHz, the dial
would ideally be set to 140 KHz. I'll have to check to see what the
actual frequency is there, when the dial is calibrated at 100 KHz. It
may be that calibrating at 140 KHz will take care of all
bottom-of-the-band cases.

Fred
K4DII

Heathkit HW-9 Dial Error
 

Fred McKenzie wrote:
In article ,
Bill M wrote:

Me, I'd just make sure the 000-050 part of the scale reads out
accurately. After all its a CW xcvr.

Bill-

That part of the dial is relatively accurate. The problem is more
serious in the WARC bands, where the dial is close to 10 KHz off.

If the dial is adjusted for 100 KHz to be accurate, the 30 Meter band
will be accurate at the low end. If the dial is set to anything below
100 KHz, the actual frequency would be higher than indicated, therefore
inside each non-WARC band.

The only problem then is the 12 Meter band. At 24.890 MHz, the dial
would ideally be set to 140 KHz. I'll have to check to see what the
actual frequency is there, when the dial is calibrated at 100 KHz. It
may be that calibrating at 140 KHz will take care of all
bottom-of-the-band cases.

Fred
K4DII

I see. I wasn't thinking of that aspect.
Hmmm...

-Bill