Ideal Ham Receiver (cont.)
 

Guys that was a great discussion...
But I still have a question or two. Well actually a lot more than that
but we can't answer them all.
---
I know I'm not ready to build my own receiver, unless I went the micro
R2 route (I'm going to build one some day).
But that still doesn't solve my need for a ham band(s) receiver - to
use as a receiver and as a necessary piece of test equipment.
---
I know that the Drake 2b is good. But how easy (and cheap) is it to get
one? Are most "wore" out?
I've heard that a common ailment is that the mechanical filter will be
screwed up.
What are some receivers to look for (don't say the Collins - I don't
have enough money)?
BTW, got the EMRFD for Christmas. I like reading it but I have a lot to
learn...
Thanks,
Dan KB9JLO

Ideal Ham Receiver (cont.)
 

bcdlr wrote:

But that still doesn't solve my need for a ham band(s) receiver - to
use as a receiver and as a necessary piece of test equipment.
---

And a related question: Folks made a lot of useful comments about
hardware-defined receivers last round, but no one has mentioned
software-defined ones. Are there any SDR's in existence that rival the
best HDRs?

I know that the Drake 2b is good.
Well, I used to have one and didn't think it was wonderful. The 4C is
good, but now you're talking s-line money. Besides, as a lab instrument
I'd have thought you'd want a receiver with accurate frequency
read-out.

Cheers!
Jim, N5JRS (was K5YUT)

Ideal Ham Receiver (cont.)
 

"bcdlr" wrote in message
oups.com...

I know I'm not ready to build my own receiver, unless I went the micro
R2 route (I'm going to build one some day).

You are never ready to build your own until you bite the bullet and do it

But that still doesn't solve my need for a ham band(s) receiver - to
use as a receiver and as a necessary piece of test equipment.

If you want to use the receiver as a piece of test equipment (and a decent
receiver can be a really great piece of test equipment) then you want a
modern, synthesized, solid-state receiver.

I know that the Drake 2b is good. But how easy (and cheap) is it to get
one? Are most "wore" out?

The 2B was a great rig in its time, but that was back in another century.
Almost anything recent, even real junk, will be better, and a lot less
hassle. Sorry to the guys who wax nostalgic about the old hollow state
gear, but get something hollow state if you like to be constantly
maintaining it, if you like drifty, unstable, etc. Compared to other stuff
AT THE TIME, the Drake was great. But any modern rice box will run circles
around it. And rigs from that time are now getting old enough that they will
soon need a major overhaul. I you aren't ready to build an R2 then you
certainly aren't ready to care for a geriatric radio.

What are some receivers to look for (don't say the Collins - I don't
have enough money)?

What do you want to do? If you are going to operate a lot of SSB, then a
Collins mechanical filter is almost a requirement, although some of the more
recent DSPs might be better they are a slightly different form of operation
so I suspect it is a lot personal. If you intend to operate CW, PSK mostly,
then the requirements are different.

If you want to use it as test gear, then you want 1) synthesized, 2) DC to
daylight -- almost any modern rice box will fit this bill. If you want to
use it on 75 meter phone, then you need brick wall filters or a very good
DSP (or both). Most modern rigs are triple conversion, with a first IFin
the 60 MHz region, second around 10, and third typically 455 kHz. If the
receiver you pick isn't VERY recent, look for a rig with the filters in the
455 kHz IF, rather than the 10, and get the filters if you plan to operate
on busy phone bands. Interestingly, CW is a lot less demanding, and the
other digital modes even less so. The digital modes do require a lot of
stability, but on modern rigs that is pretty much a given.

Because of competition, I think you will find a better deal in a transceiver
than a receiver. Decent receivers are kind of a specialty item so they tend
to be very expensive. Indeed, it seems like you have very low end stuff and
very high end stuff, and not a lot in between. The kind of receiver you can
buy new for a few hundred bucks isn't going to be useable on the ham bands.
On the other hand, if you only want to know whether your homebrew oscillator
is on the right planet, then a cheap, synthesized SWL radio will do the
trick.

Used prices are really uneven. Some things you can do real well on (browse
through the completed auctions on eBay to get a feel for prices), and others
people seem to insist on getting new prices for old gear. If you do go with
used, it may be the best thing to do is to pick something and get on eBay.
The trouble with eBay is that there are enough people that are clueless that
things often sell for well more than they are worth. But on the other hand,
if you don't let yourself get sucked in, and you are patient, you can often
do pretty well. Just be sure you know what you are willing to pay and don't
go beyond that, and that you look forward to spending a month or two getting
what you want. But real bargains are pretty rare anymore.

A few years ago I would have suggested a hamfest. But most of the hamfests
have gotten a lot like eBay. There will be a wide selection at Dayton, but
most will be either real junk or overpriced. I guess that is a difference;
you don't see a huge amount of old junk on eBay, probably because of the
cost and hassle of listing it. You see plenty at hamfests, though.

...

Ideal Ham Receiver (cont.)
 

bcdlr wrote:
Guys that was a great discussion...
But I still have a question or two. Well actually a lot more than that
but we can't answer them all.
---
I know I'm not ready to build my own receiver, unless I went the micro
R2 route (I'm going to build one some day).
But that still doesn't solve my need for a ham band(s) receiver - to
use as a receiver and as a necessary piece of test equipment.
---
I know that the Drake 2b is good. But how easy (and cheap) is it to get
one? Are most "wore" out?
I've heard that a common ailment is that the mechanical filter will be
screwed up.


The 2B does not have a mechanical filter so no worries there.

I have a Drake R4A (next generation Drake after the 2B) & it is one of
the best receivers I have ever owned [I've owned maybe 50+ medium &
high end receivers (Collins, Hammarlund, National, Ten-tec, Yaesu,
Kenwood, Swan, Elecraft, etc.) in nearly 50 years of hamming including
many of the newer solid state variety].

My R4A doesn't drift (after warm up), excellent audio, pass band
tuning, 4 stages of selectivity, AM & product detectors, excellent
build quality, extremely reliable & much easier to work on than any of
the newer solid state stuff. I paid $140 for mine & nice examples can
be had for $150 - $250. The R4, R4A & R4B were similar design & were
complete radios out of the box. I've had zero trouble with mine in
eight years. The R4C went to crystal filters & is really a much
different radio.

I would recommend the R4A's & R4B's as great radios that you will not
be dissapointed with for the price.

Look for one that is crystalled up with extra SW freq's & has a clean
copper chassis (they are proned to tarnish).

Terry
W8EJO

Ideal Ham Receiver (cont.)
 

bcdlr wrote:
I know I'm not ready to build my own receiver, unless I went the micro
R2 route (I'm going to build one some day).

You can build yourself a regen out of literally junk box parts. Direct
conversion is a step up and not much harder. The micro R2 is even
nicer.

But that still doesn't solve my need for a ham band(s) receiver - to
use as a receiver and as a necessary piece of test equipment.

If you are looking for "the ultimate receiver as a first step" then
homebrewing is NOT for you.

I know that the Drake 2b is good. But how easy (and cheap) is it to get
one? Are most "wore" out?
I've heard that a common ailment is that the mechanical filter will be
screwed up.

They weren't talking about the 2B then. The 2B is LC filtering
throughout. It's nice for the era.

What are some receivers to look for (don't say the Collins - I don't
have enough money)?

The new $100 shortwave receivers with a BFO will get CW and SSB OK. Not
spectacularly well.

Again, you seem to be struggling with both building your first
receiver, and making it the end-all-and-be-all-receiver that you'll
never need another one. Those are largely incompatible goals.

You can build yourself a little QRP transceiver for a smallish amount
of money. Will probably only cover one band and only the CW section,
but that's OK.

You can buy an older all-ham-band (well, pre-WARC) transceiver for
circa $100-$200. Might take some tweaking/cleaning, but that'll be good
for you to learn. Will do CW and SSB just fine, maybe even AM and FM
too if you want that (of very marginal use for most ham activities).

Test equipment on the used market is outrageously cheap. You could set
yourself up with a dual-channel scope and a frequency counter for $200
real easy, less if you shop around. This sort of stuff would've been
unobtanium to a ham in the 60's or early 70's.

Tim.

Ideal Ham Receiver (cont.)
 

The only mechanical filters that I have seen problems with are the Japanese
units that you find in the JRC receivers. There is some sort of foam that
deteriorates over the years. I haven't seen a problem with Collins filters.
Receivers don't "wear out". With an older receiver, however, it's a good bet
that you will have to replace the electrolytic caps and replace all of the
carbon composition resistors that have drifted up in value over the years.
I took a different approach....................years ago, I also couldn't
affort the top end receivers so I learned how to design my own high
performance units. It was quite a learning experience, and it is a good way
to go. This experience has landed me a few high paying jobs in the field.
Give it a try!

Pete

"bcdlr" wrote in message
oups.com...
Guys that was a great discussion...
But I still have a question or two. Well actually a lot more than that
but we can't answer them all.
---
I know I'm not ready to build my own receiver, unless I went the micro
R2 route (I'm going to build one some day).
But that still doesn't solve my need for a ham band(s) receiver - to
use as a receiver and as a necessary piece of test equipment.
---
I know that the Drake 2b is good. But how easy (and cheap) is it to get
one? Are most "wore" out?
I've heard that a common ailment is that the mechanical filter will be
screwed up.
What are some receivers to look for (don't say the Collins - I don't
have enough money)?
BTW, got the EMRFD for Christmas. I like reading it but I have a lot to
learn...
Thanks,
Dan KB9JLO

Ideal Ham Receiver (cont.)
 

All good answers. The main reason I was not going to build a Micro R2
was not the building but the single band.
I wanted something multiple band and as to frequency readout I was
thinking of adding a digital dial.
This guy has a neat (and cheap) frequency counter:
http://www.foxdelta.com/products/fc2.htm
And the shipping is only $5 to the US. (Haven't bought from him yet or
before, BTW).
---
Yes, I'm trying to maximize my purchase but I don't expect it to do
everything. And I probably should just bite the bullet and build
something but I'd like to have something commercial to fall back on.
This maybe werid reasoning but I'm trying to stay away from a
transceiver because I don't want the transmitter part. I want to try
and build my own transmitters and transceivers.
My first big project plan is to build a BITX20 SSB transceiver. I've
had a blast on 20 meter QRP SSB.
I've built an antenna tuner (Hans Summers' site) and I just finished a
KD1JV 'Tenna Tuner' - that's how I found out my frequency counter was
shot. It was given to me a year or so ago and I had never really used
it.
I also have a Softrock 6.x 40 M receiver I just finished but haven't
tested yet and a Micro 80 XCVR in the same boat (Micro80 is a Russian
Pixie type rig). I also have a AMQRP DDS60 on the bench but haven't
started it yet.
I have a RF signal generator (old Heathkit), two o'scopes but both are
low bandwidth, one is an old Tektronix solid state 3", 4 MHz BW and the
other is some dual trace that is like 5 or 10 MHz - but frankly I don't
remember how to use them correctly. I have a DMM, an AADE LC meter (I
love this thing), some odds and ends single board stuff I've built.
As one of you said, I need something to listen to the oscillator
with... But I'd like just a tad bit more.
Could I really get by with a newer digital dial SW receiver? I thought
they were just too wide open on the front end side to be any good at
all.
I have been eyeing the Drake R4 series... But that's probably more
liquid cash then I have.

Please keep it coming. I learning and asking questions. And some of it
is really starting to make sense!! :-)
---
On the receiver I've put messages on eHam and QRZ for a 'receiver
wanted' - I have some P4 class desktop machines I could trade, but I
haven't gotten any nibbles at all yet. I've been hesitant to put the
same message on rec.radio.swap due to the volume of traffic there.

Dan KB9JLO

Ideal Ham Receiver (cont.)
 

"bcdlr" ) writes:
All good answers. The main reason I was not going to build a Micro R2
was not the building but the single band.
I wanted something multiple band and as to frequency readout I was
thinking of adding a digital dial.

But this goes back to the previous thread.

It's far better to build a single band receiver well, and get it
working, than to deal with the issues of multiple bands.

But, that receiver will work all over the place, with some changing
of frequency sensitive circuitry. One of those R2 receivers is
even set up for using modules to change bands.

One of the points of building a receiver that tuned a fixed range,
and then putting converters ahead of it, was that you could build
the main receiver, and use it immediately, and then deal with adding
the other bands.

I've often felt it makes lots of sense to make a good receiver, minus
the frequency selective elements, and then put it into a good box.
Put the "variable oscillator" in a separate box, so you can have a simple
single band VFO to begin with, or even a crystal oscillator for a fixed
frequency, and get the receiver going easily. Then you can work on
the fancier wide range synthesizer, or go through various iterations.
The basic receiver is always available, and so is the fallback variable
oscillator, which is not the case if you need to put the receiver on
the workbench to make some modification.

Now that broadband techniques have come to amateur radio, your "black
box" receiver can keep the frequency selective elements outside the
box. You can play with plug-ins for the desired bands, or something
that switches the LC circuits. Or both, migrating from the simple
to the complicated. You might find that on some bands that are less
important to you, you can get by with a simpler front end filter,
but other bands you want something fancier. If you build a receiver
all in one box, and the ultimate is the end goal, then you don't have
the chance of having the receiver relatively early, and you don't learn
from the experimenting. Plus, your ultimate standards have to be
there across the bands, rather than applied selectiviely.

Ray Moore wrote an artilce in Ham Raido magainze about 1973 or '74 about
receiver design, and showed off what was to him his "ultimate receiver".
But it was a broadcast band receiver, which few of the readership would
be interested in. He was merely using it as an example. His point was
that it's easier to build a really good receiver for a dedicated task
than to build a general purpose receiver that does everything well. He
mentioned that commercial receivers were often a series of tradeoffs because
they needed to provide something to a wide range of buyers, yet then
people are often paying extra for features they will never use.

Starting with a "black box" provides a lot more flexibility than when
putting the frequency selective elements in the box.

It doesn't even have to be the R2. Get a good passive mixer, a decent
SSB-bandwidth 9MHz crystal filter (or build one), and then build up a good
basic receiver that doesn't work without added circuitry. ANd use
that as the "black box".

Michael VE2BVW

Ideal Ham Receiver (cont.)
 

bcdlr wrote:
Could I really get by with a newer digital dial SW receiver? I thought
they were just too wide open on the front end side to be any good at
all.

Where are you at, Cental Europe? If so, then the front end is too wide
open.

If the middle of the US, then there's not much problem. If it becomes a
problem, just put an attenuator in front.

The user interface on the new digital dial SW receivers is univerally
sucky. They do awfully bad at "tuning around the band looking for a
QSO", they are really built around the concept that someone will want
to listen to Radio Netherlands at 15735kc and just punch in that number
and expect to find it. There might be a tuning dial but it feels more
like you're dialing through channels than tuning up and down the bands.
The filters are only middlin' for AM, and will be "too wide" for SSB or
CW on the ham bands if things are at all crowded. But contrasted with a
$250 receiver from the 1960's they have a lot of nice things that were
purely pie-in-the-sky back then!

On the receiver I've put messages on eHam and QRZ for a 'receiver
wanted' - I have some P4 class desktop machines I could trade, but I
haven't gotten any nibbles at all yet. I've been hesitant to put the
same message on rec.radio.swap due to the volume of traffic there.

Lots of stuff goes through E-bay. Including the general coverage
receivers you seem to desire, for example I got a WJ-8716 (something
that was almost entirely out of the reach of a non-millionaire ham in
the 70's or 80's) at a tiny tiny fraction of what they originally sell
for. Still not "cheap".

If you like CW, I have recently become very enamored of the Heathkit
HW-16. There's a lot to be said for simple single-mode
limited-bandwidth receivers (or in the case of the HW-12 transceivers).
Break-in on the HW-16 with a couple mods is seamless, it's so good that
I FEEL like I can hear even when I have the key down.

Spring is coming and there will probably be some hamfests near you.
Hamfests tend to be better than say 10 or 15 years ago, when they were
all computer junk. Even if you don't buy, you get to see and usually
touch the stuff.

Tim.

Ideal Ham Receiver (cont.)
 

bcdlr wrote:
Guys that was a great discussion...
But I still have a question or two. Well actually a lot more than that
but we can't answer them all.
---
I know I'm not ready to build my own receiver, unless I went the micro
R2 route (I'm going to build one some day).
But that still doesn't solve my need for a ham band(s) receiver - to
use as a receiver and as a necessary piece of test equipment.
---
I know that the Drake 2b is good. But how easy (and cheap) is it to get
one? Are most "wore" out?
I've heard that a common ailment is that the mechanical filter will be
screwed up.
What are some receivers to look for (don't say the Collins - I don't
have enough money)?

You already know the names to look for: Kenwood, Icom,
Yaesu. Most names from the past are either junk by
modern standards, or are expensive collectors items.
You're already on the air, so *talk* to people. Hell, maybe
somebody has an old but still useful radio they're not
using. You'll never know if you don't ask.

There are indeed used professional receivers out there.
You will get an astonishing radio if it has a name on it like
Watkins-Johnson or Harris (two names that have shown
up in this thread), but just because they're less than
they were new doesn't mean they're cheap.

My advice: buy something decent, but don't fret too
much over just what it is. Once you have some
experience with whatever you end up buying, you'll
have a standard for comparison, and will know what
to look for.

You asked about software radios? (I abhor the term
SDR) Buzzword city, ultra-trendy, but I'd be surprised
if 1 ham in 100 really knew how they worked. Get it
right, though, and a software radio can do things no
hardware radio could dream of doing.

Laura Halliday VE7LDH "That's a totally illegal,
Grid: CN89mg madcap scheme. I like it!"
ICBM: 49 16.05 N 122 56.92 W - H. Pearce

Ideal Ham Receiver (cont.)
 

laura halliday wrote:
There are indeed used professional receivers out there.
You will get an astonishing radio if it has a name on it like
Watkins-Johnson or Harris (two names that have shown
up in this thread), but just because they're less than
they were new doesn't mean they're cheap.

I spent about a day's salary on my WJ-8716. I contrast that with the
stuff I had thirty years ago and that's dirt cheap :-). In constant
dollars I spent way less on the WJ than on my HW-100 back then.

That said, I have a lot more fun with simple one-mode ham-band-only (or
a few-ham-bands or one-ham-band) receivers. The most fun ARE just a
step or two removed from the most simple. While the filters on my HW-16
aren't nearly as tight as those on the WJ-8716, the receiver of my
HW-16 feels MUCH more like a "window on a slice of the 40M CW band".

Once you have some
experience with whatever you end up buying, you'll
have a standard for comparison, and will know what
to look for.

A decent older ham-band transceiver is a fine place to start. Lots of
radios from the 80's on are also general-coverage receivers.

My advice is to not only listen and use and look "upscale", but look
and try out "downscale" too. Some steps down will be too far (for
example, I really do not enjoy direct conversion receivers although I
appreciate much of their simplicity) but some other will be "just
right".

Tim.

Ideal Ham Receiver (cont.)
 

bcdlr wrote:
Guys that was a great discussion...
But I still have a question or two. Well actually a lot more than that
but we can't answer them all.
---
I know I'm not ready to build my own receiver, unless I went the micro
R2 route (I'm going to build one some day).
But that still doesn't solve my need for a ham band(s) receiver - to
use as a receiver and as a necessary piece of test equipment.
---
why not kill 2 birds with one stone?
for about $200.00 u can get the The Electroluminescent Receiver Kit
http://www.pan-tex.net/usr/r/receivers/
its a kit that is designed to be a teaching platform and the pads are large
enough to allow for multiple remove this and try that type mods.
$60.00 of that price is a digital read out.

Ideal Ham Receiver (cont.)
 

Sam Morgan wrote:
why not kill 2 birds with one stone?
for about $200.00 u can get the The Electroluminescent Receiver Kit
http://www.pan-tex.net/usr/r/receivers/
its a kit that is designed to be a teaching platform and the pads are
large enough to allow for multiple remove this and try that type mods.
$60.00 of that price is a digital read out.

sorry, I forgot this part:
http://www.pan-tex.net/usr/r/receive...nstruction.htm
the "General Information About the Boards" is what sold me on the unit
there is so much info all scattered about on that site that it took me a while
to find that part

Ideal Ham Receiver (cont.)
 

"laura halliday" wrote in message
oups.com...
You asked about software radios? (I abhor the term
SDR) Buzzword city, ultra-trendy, but I'd be surprised
if 1 ham in 100 really knew how they worked.

Does 1 ham in 100 really know how an FM demodulator works anymore?

Ideal Ham Receiver (cont.)
 

Tim Shoppa wrote:
laura halliday wrote:
There are indeed used professional receivers out there.
You will get an astonishing radio if it has a name on it like
Watkins-Johnson or Harris (two names that have shown
up in this thread), but just because they're less than
they were new doesn't mean they're cheap.

I spent about a day's salary on my WJ-8716. I contrast that with the
stuff I had thirty years ago and that's dirt cheap :-). In constant
dollars I spent way less on the WJ than on my HW-100 back then.

You got a bargain, and I'm envious. My RF-590 cost more
than my car, though that's not saying much. :-)

I made up for it with my 51J-4 (oops...sorry...it's a Collins!),
which I got for hauling it away.

That said, I have a lot more fun with simple one-mode ham-band-only (or
a few-ham-bands or one-ham-band) receivers. The most fun ARE just a
step or two removed from the most simple. While the filters on my HW-16
aren't nearly as tight as those on the WJ-8716, the receiver of my
HW-16 feels MUCH more like a "window on a slice of the 40M CW band".

The HW-16 is one of the great radios, and is an excellent
example of how simple a radio can be, and how well it
can work. I had one for a while, but it kept frying the QSK
switching transistor. :-(

There is an enormous amount of choice out there.
If you (the original poster) come across anything
that looks even remotely useful, grab it.

Laura Halliday VE7LDH "That's a totally illegal,
Grid: CN89mg madcap scheme. I like it!"
ICBM: 49 16.05 N 122 56.92 W - H. Pearce

Ideal Ham Receiver (cont.)
 

Sam, I have looked at this receiver a couple of times. The price is
quite attractive and I would get to build it to boot. I was just a
little skeptical.

Have any of you built one? Does it work well?

It sure looks like a hoot to build and use.

He also has a 'basic' one band receiver kit as well. Don't remember
much about it.

Dan KB9JLO

Sam Morgan wrote:
Sam Morgan wrote:
why not kill 2 birds with one stone?
for about $200.00 u can get the The Electroluminescent Receiver Kit
http://www.pan-tex.net/usr/r/receivers/
its a kit that is designed to be a teaching platform and the pads are
large enough to allow for multiple remove this and try that type mods.
$60.00 of that price is a digital read out.

Ideal Ham Receiver (cont.)
 

bcdlr wrote:
Sam, I have looked at this receiver a couple of times. The price is
quite attractive and I would get to build it to boot. I was just a
little skeptical.

Have any of you built one? Does it work well?

It sure looks like a hoot to build and use.

He also has a 'basic' one band receiver kit as well. Don't remember
much about it.

Well I thought it over for a long time as well.....
Then I met David, WN5Y one night on our regular Sunday night Echolink QRP
Conference. After a long discussion with him I decided to try one. How well does
it work? I'll tell you when I finish it. g I am maybe 1/4 of the way through
building it.
Is it a fun build, absolutely!

I put the ELR (Electro Luminescent Reciever) assembly on the back burner while I
built the m3 digital LCRZ meter http://www.m3electronix.com/lcr.html I figured
it would be a handy tool for what ever mod I might wish to try on the ELR unit.
So I'm just now getting back to building it.

After building that little LCRZ meter it was a real pleasure to get back to the
ELR's large boards and discrete components.

I will say that I have had the occasion to need to ask David a couple of
questions along the way and he has always been extremely helpful. He is even
open to questions not only about the actual assembly, but is also willing to
bounce around queries about modification you might be considering to the unit.

My reason for the choice of the ELR was......
I have a TS430S that I had to send off to get it fixed. Not only did I not have
the equipment to fix it, I didn't have the knowledge. About $250.00, 2 months,
and 2 trips back to the shop) a return trip for something that wasn't fixed the
1st time around.

After all that, I decided I wanted to learn how to repair what ever rx and tx I
bought/built in the future. So I figured if I built it, I just might learn
enough along the way to be able to repair it. Since my favorite bands are 40m,
30m, and 17m the ELR was exactly what I wanted.

I'm sure enjoying the build and if I don't like it's performance (which I doubt
will be the case) It's designed with the wider pads so that I can play with it
and try out this, that, or what ever mods I think could make it better. Ever
tried that on a board with those tiny traces and smd components? I'm not that
comfortable with the dead bug or manhattan styled building, maybe later after I
begin to understand theory well enough to try something from scratch. And the
huge plus that the guy who sells it, encourages me to correspond with him about
any mods and he is happy and willing to help me out with them...... Can't beat
it as far as I'm concerned. Sorry for rambling on, I'll just close with the
comment "try it (I really think) you'll like it"

God Bless,
KA5OAI

Ideal Ham Receiver (cont.)
 

Pete KE9OA wrote:
The only mechanical filters that I have seen problems with are the Japanese
units that you find in the JRC receivers. There is some sort of foam that
deteriorates over the years. I haven't seen a problem with Collins filters.
I have an old Collins filter made for the R390 series receivers. It is
a cylindrical filter with two pins at each end for connections. I can
hear something rattling around inside this filter as I tilt it from side
to side. Has something deteriorated inside this filter or is this
normal? A later rectangular Collins filter does NOT make this noise.

Ideal Ham Receiver (cont.)
 

ken scharf ) writes:
Pete KE9OA wrote:
The only mechanical filters that I have seen problems with are the Japanese
units that you find in the JRC receivers. There is some sort of foam that
deteriorates over the years. I haven't seen a problem with Collins filters.
I have an old Collins filter made for the R390 series receivers. It is
a cylindrical filter with two pins at each end for connections. I can
hear something rattling around inside this filter as I tilt it from side
to side. Has something deteriorated inside this filter or is this
normal? A later rectangular Collins filter does NOT make this noise.

I don't think a noise is normal.

But, it's always possible that they can be dropped.

The issue Pete is talking about is that those Japanese filters were
made with different materials, and they decay with time.

Michael VE2BVW

Ideal Ham Receiver (cont.)
 

Michael Black wrote:
ken scharf ) writes:
Pete KE9OA wrote:
The only mechanical filters that I have seen problems with are the Japanese
units that you find in the JRC receivers. There is some sort of foam that
deteriorates over the years. I haven't seen a problem with Collins filters.
I have an old Collins filter made for the R390 series receivers. It is
a cylindrical filter with two pins at each end for connections. I can
hear something rattling around inside this filter as I tilt it from side
to side. Has something deteriorated inside this filter or is this
normal? A later rectangular Collins filter does NOT make this noise.

I don't think a noise is normal.

But, it's always possible that they can be dropped.

The issue Pete is talking about is that those Japanese filters were
made with different materials, and they decay with time.

Michael VE2BVW

My filter has never left the original Collins packing (heavy cotton
lining in a large cardboard box) since I got it at a hamfest years ago
(for a project that never happened). I remember the filter seemed ok
when I bought it, and it was NEVER dropped (by me anyway). Years later
when I found it while packing for a move I noticed it developed this
sound when handled.

Ideal Ham Receiver (cont.)
 

Well, I think I'm just going to go with a modern, portable SWL receiver
for now. There are several very interesting models that are quite
cheap. New prices are about $150 for the newest and best of them.

I appreciate all the input and encouragement. I built my first
'Manhatten' constructed circuit this week - a VFO for the BITX20
transceiver. The good news it oscillates, the bad news is not at the
right frequency or the right spread but I've got an online buddy
helping me out and if nothing, I got off of dead center. I'm just
excited that it worked at all - AND - that I understand most of it and
how it works. I'm pretty sure I will understand it all before I'm
finished.

If you're intersted the radios I'm looking at are the Eton E5, Sony
ICF-SW7600G & GR, Degen/Kaito DE-1103 and a couple of other oddballs.
Hopefully I can snag one off of eBay.

Thanks again.

Dan KB9JLO