wrote in
oups.com:


Most hollow-state ham rigs can handle 2:1 SWR no problem.
Sometimes there is less tolerance for loads that are highly
reactive, though.

What are the practical limitations of the Tube finals apparent
flexibility?

It's really a matter of how the rig was designed.

Many 1950s hollow-state ham rigs were built with pi-networks that
could match a wide variety of loads efficiently. The EF Johnson Viking
2 is a classic example of that type. Many
homebrew designs also had such pi-networks.

The problem is that the components for such a wide-range network tend
to be large, heavy and expensive. So in the late 1950s and early
1960s, rigmakers designed more for compactness than for wide matching
range. Still, the typical
ham rig of those days could usually handle SWR of 2:1 or
less with no problems.




Is it safe to compare the load, plate, and drive controls to some of
the functions of a tuner? (possible real dumb question)

The short answer is "no". Tuning up a hollowstate
ham rig is a similar but not identical to adjusting the
typical tuner.

Some may tell you that all it takes to tune up a tube
transmitter is to "peak the grid and dip the plate", but
that's simply not correct. Tuneup procedures vary
according to rig design and you have to be specific.

Of course once you get the hang of it, the procedure
rapidly becomes second nature.

I enjoy twiddling knobs, kind of the same way I like a manual
transmission. 8^)


What specific hollowstate rigs are you considering?


Last year at Dayton I purchased a 40 and 80 meter Heathkit single
Bander as a learning tool - they are pretty simple. I restored the
80 meter unit, and will start on the 40 meter one sometime. I am now
looking at a Kenwood TS-830S. It's a hybrid, with tube finals. I
really like it so far, although I don't see it replacing my IC-761.
I am hooked on computer control of the newer rig - sometimes! Other
times I just like that retro aspect.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

On Mar 4, 6:57�pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote groups.com:

Most hollow-state ham rigs can handle 2:1 SWR no problem.
Sometimes there is less tolerance for loads that are highly
reactive, though.

What are the practical limitations of the Tube finals apparent
flexibility?

It's really a matter of how the rig was designed.

Many 1950s hollow-state ham rigs were built with pi-networks that
could match a wide variety of loads efficiently. The EF Johnson Viking
2 is a classic example of that type. Many
homebrew designs also had such pi-networks.

The problem is that the components for such a wide-range network tend
to be large, heavy and expensive. So in the late 1950s and early
1960s, rigmakers designed more for compactness than for wide matching
range. Still, the typical
ham rig of those days could usually handle SWR of 2:1 or
less with no problems.
Is it safe to compare the load, plate, and drive controls to some of
the functions of a tuner? (possible real dumb question)
The short answer is "no". Tuning up a hollowstate
ham rig is a similar but not identical to adjusting the
typical tuner.

Some may tell you that all it takes to tune up a tube
transmitter is to "peak the grid and dip the plate", but
that's simply not correct. Tuneup procedures vary
according to rig design and you have to be specific.
Of course once you get the hang of it, the procedure
rapidly becomes second nature.

I enjoy twiddling knobs, kind of the same way I like a manual
transmission. 8^)

It's a question of skill vs. automation.

What specific hollowstate rigs are you considering?

* * Last year at Dayton I purchased a 40 and 80 meter Heathkit single
* * Bander as a learning tool - they are pretty simple. I restored the
* * 80 meter unit, and will start on the 40 meter one sometime.

I think you mean the Heath HW-12 and HW-22, or the later
A models of the same rigs.

They are from the early-to-mid 1960s, and have very limited
matching range. They are really only meant to match a 50
ohm load. Note that there isn't even a LOADING control on
them.

The Single Banders were Heath's answer to the "SSB is too
expensive" idea. Every possible simplification and economy
measure was used in them, yet the result is a usable 100 W
class SSB transceiver for one HF ham band. Note that the
75 meter one stops at 3.8 MHz. Heath figured that by
simplifying the output pi network to the most extreme degree,
they could save a few dollars. Coming up with a 50 ohm
antenna was the ham's problem.

I am now
* * looking at a Kenwood TS-830S. It's a hybrid, with tube finals. I
* * really like it so far, although I don't see it replacing my IC-761.

That's a pretty good rig for its era. The matching range is limited
but it will handle 2:1 SWR without problems IMLE.

I am hooked on computer control of the newer rig - sometimes! Other
* * times I just like that retro aspect.

One of the great things about amateur radio today is that we can
use a wide variety of technologies for the same or similar purposes.

I find it ironic that the evolution of the "state of the art" has come
full circle in about a half-century, at least in HF/MF:

- Ham rigs of the 1950s usually had wide range pi-nets which required
adjustment, but would match almost anything without an external
device.
- Ham rigs of the 1960s and 1970s usually had restricted-range
pi-nets which were easier to adjust, but sometimes required an
external matching device.
- Ham rigs of the 1980s and later usually have solid-state finals and
no adjustment - and usually require an external matching device.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote in
oups.com:
Some may tell you that all it takes to tune up a tube
transmitter is to "peak the grid and dip the plate", but
that's simply not correct. Tuneup procedures vary
according to rig design and you have to be specific.
Of course once you get the hang of it, the procedure
rapidly becomes second nature.

I enjoy twiddling knobs, kind of the same way I like a manual
transmission. 8^)

It's a question of skill vs. automation.

I've always wanted to know just what was going on in what I was
operating. I at least like the option betwen automatic operation and
manual. Skills can never hurt.


What specific hollowstate rigs are you considering?

* * Last year at Dayton I purchased a 40 and 80 meter Heathkit single
* * Bander as a learning tool - they are pretty simple. I restored
the * * 80 meter unit, and will start on the 40 meter one sometime.

I think you mean the Heath HW-12 and HW-22, or the later
A models of the same rigs.

They are from the early-to-mid 1960s, and have very limited
matching range. They are really only meant to match a 50
ohm load. Note that there isn't even a LOADING control on
them.

That would be the units with one exception. More on that later..


The Single Banders were Heath's answer to the "SSB is too
expensive" idea. Every possible simplification and economy
measure was used in them, yet the result is a usable 100 W
class SSB transceiver for one HF ham band.

The simplicity was what attracted me to them. No filters, nonotch,
no pbt, no RIT, no - well you get it.



Note that the
75 meter one stops at 3.8 MHz. Heath figured that by
simplifying the output pi network to the most extreme degree,
they could save a few dollars. Coming up with a 50 ohm
antenna was the ham's problem.

The 75 meter rig I have tunes to 4 MHz. It's also a HW22a, probably a
later mod. But all that simplicity is a good thing for a lad raised
mostly on integrated circuits! 8^)


I am now
* * looking at a Kenwood TS-830S. It's a hybrid, with tube finals. I
* * really like it so far, although I don't see it replacing my
IC-761.

That's a pretty good rig for its era. The matching range is limited
but it will handle 2:1 SWR without problems IMLE.

I have been pretty impressed so far. The receiver seems pretty hot,
certainly the sound is *good*. I'm listening to it right now, and it is
simply very legible. Tuning is only one speed, and a tad fast. Seems
strange just having SSB and CW, but overall I think I'll keep it.



I am hooked on computer control of the newer rig - sometimes!
Other times I just like that retro aspect.

One of the great things about amateur radio today is that we can
use a wide variety of technologies for the same or similar purposes.


I find it ironic that the evolution of the "state of the art" has come
full circle in about a half-century, at least in HF/MF:

- Ham rigs of the 1950s usually had wide range pi-nets which required
adjustment, but would match almost anything without an external
device.
- Ham rigs of the 1960s and 1970s usually had restricted-range
pi-nets which were easier to adjust, but sometimes required an
external matching device.
- Ham rigs of the 1980s and later usually have solid-state finals and
no adjustment - and usually require an external matching device.

And that is what I'm thinking about with regards to new rigs with
an internal tuner that has both balanced and unbalanced capabilities as a
natural evolution. There are a lot of Hams that don't have the ability to
put up towers and beams, and are looking at a wire antenna for a while. I
think its time for that

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

On Mar 5, 3:26 am, Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote groups.com:


The simplicity was what attracted me to them. No filters, nonotch,
no pbt, no RIT, no - well you get it.

Note that the
75 meter one stops at 3.8 MHz. Heath figured that by
simplifying the output pi network to the most extreme degree,
they could save a few dollars. Coming up with a 50 ohm
antenna was the ham's problem.

The 75 meter rig I have tunes to 4 MHz. It's also a HW22a, probably a
later mod. But all that simplicity is a good thing for a lad raised
mostly on integrated circuits! 8^)

The 75m transceiver is the HW-12A. It runs 3.8-4.0 MHz. That's all
the phone band there was back when the rig was produced. There's a
mod in one of the mags--CQ, I think--that puts in a fixed silver mica
cap with a little trimmer cap in parallel for making the thing work on
both 3.8-4.0 and 3.7-3.9 MHz at the flip of a mini-toggle switch.
That'd give you a bit more room to roam.

I am now
looking at a Kenwood TS-830S. It's a hybrid, with tube finals. I
really like it so far, although I don't see it replacing my
IC-761.

That's a pretty good rig for its era. The matching range is limited
but it will handle 2:1 SWR without problems IMLE.

I have been pretty impressed so far. The receiver seems pretty hot,
certainly the sound is *good*. I'm listening to it right now, and it is
simply very legible. Tuning is only one speed, and a tad fast. Seems
strange just having SSB and CW, but overall I think I'll keep it.

In it's era, the TS-830 was somewhat of a DXer's and contester's dream
machine.
That receiver has an extra filter slot for cascading filters. One can
still buy after market filters for it.

Dave K8MN

On Mar 4, 5:48 pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
Solid state transmitters are notoriously finicky about matching to the
antenna. Tube equipment is not, so I am told, and early experience seems
to bear that out.

I don't know if "finicky" is a good term, Mike. "Different" might be
the best word to use. Transmitters with vacuum tube finals can match
a wider range as a rule, but there is a limit to what they can
handle. Some of the older Johnson and Globe/WRL rigs matched a wider
range than some of the other brands.

Certainly I can see one of my newer rigs start to fold back at 2:1.

Most Japanese gear is designed to do just what you're experiencing.
That's a form of protection for the final transistors. Ten-Tec does
it differently. Ten-Tec rigs do not start to reduce power. They
depend upon the supply to fault and trip if too much current is
drawn. That's why it is important to use a Ten-Tec supply with them
or to use a fast breaker rated to trip near the maximum current draw
expected of the transmitter.

What are the practical limitations of the Tube finals apparent
flexibility?

That depends entirely upon the design specifications set by the
manufacturer.
If the manufacturer's manual says "45-90 ohms", that's the practical
limitation.
Some of those old Globe transmitters used to have ranges of up to 1000
or 2000 ohms as I recall. At the other end of the spectrum,
Hallicrafters produced some transmitters without even a loading
control. These were designed to be used with an antenna presenting
something very close to 50 or 75 ohms.

Is it safe to compare the load, plate, and drive controls to some of the
functions of a tuner? (possible real dumb question)

Not the "drive" control, but certainly the other controls of a tuner
could be considered comparable to the "tune" and "load" controls.

If the only antennas we have are trapped verticals, tribanders or
dipoles/inverted vees cut for the band to be used, we might get away
with not having to use a tuner at all. Still there are likely to be
frequencies significantly removed from the antenna's resonant
frequency where one might need a tuner to enable the transmitter to
make full power. We aren't likely to need a wide range tuner for
those times. A simple T-match will likely enable us to find a
combination of settings which will present a low VSWR to the
transmitter. The main alternative is to have a variety of antennas
which present a VSWR of under 2:1 to a transmitter.

Dave K8MN

wrote:

If the only antennas we have are trapped verticals, tribanders or
dipoles/inverted vees cut for the band to be used, we might get away
with not having to use a tuner at all. Still there are likely to be
frequencies significantly removed from the antenna's resonant
frequency where one might need a tuner to enable the transmitter to
make full power. We aren't likely to need a wide range tuner for
those times. A simple T-match will likely enable us to find a
combination of settings which will present a low VSWR to the
transmitter. The main alternative is to have a variety of antennas
which present a VSWR of under 2:1 to a transmitter.

That brings up a related issue. Lots of Hams today are restricted to
one antenna, yet they would like all band operation. I think it would be a
great idea for a manufacturer to have a transciever that included a tuner
right in the rig itself.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
6
wrote:

If the only antennas we have are trapped verticals,
tribanders or dipoles/inverted vees cut for the band to
be used, we might get away with not having to use a
tuner at all. Still there are likely to be frequencies
significantly removed from the antenna's resonant
frequency where one might need a tuner to enable the
transmitter to make full power. We aren't likely to
need a wide range tuner for those times. A simple
T-match will likely enable us to find a combination of
settings which will present a low VSWR to the
transmitter. The main alternative is to have a variety
of antennas which present a VSWR of under 2:1 to a
transmitter.

That brings up a related issue. Lots of Hams today are
restricted to one antenna, yet they would like all band
operation. I think it would be a great idea for a
manufacturer to have a transciever that included a tuner
right in the rig itself.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

They do exist, although being primarily interested in VHF/UHF operation
(we only recently had the morse requirement for HF dropped over here in
the UK, but that's another topic..!!) I've had little experience of them.

I do remember vividly using a Drake commercial HF transceiver (I think it
came out of a ship's radio room) back in the late 80's at a special event
station that had this feature, you could operate on any band without any
form of tuning at all, although of course how much power would get out on
a really bad antenna is debatable ;-)

Of course if you've enough money, there are those antennas that tune
themselves. A friend has a 3-element beam that is computer controlled; as
you tune across the bands, the elements automatically adjust themselves to
the correct length..! I don't recall the make/model, but it is of American
origin, does anyone know of it..?

73 Ivor G6URP

"Ivor Jones" wrote in message
...
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
6
wrote:


[snip]


That brings up a related issue. Lots of Hams today are
restricted to one antenna, yet they would like all band
operation. I think it would be a great idea for a
manufacturer to have a transciever that included a tuner
right in the rig itself.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

They do exist, although being primarily interested in VHF/UHF operation
(we only recently had the morse requirement for HF dropped over here in
the UK, but that's another topic..!!) I've had little experience of them.


My main HF rig and my husband's main HF rig both have built in tuners. Both
work pretty well. However they do not have the range of outboard tuners.

I do remember vividly using a Drake commercial HF transceiver (I think it
came out of a ship's radio room) back in the late 80's at a special event
station that had this feature, you could operate on any band without any
form of tuning at all, although of course how much power would get out on
a really bad antenna is debatable ;-)


A lot of commericial and military equipment have built in tuners with quite
significant tuning ranges. Of course this comes at a price so amateur gear
doesn't have as much range in their tuning capacity on the built in tuners.

Of course if you've enough money, there are those antennas that tune
themselves. A friend has a 3-element beam that is computer controlled; as
you tune across the bands, the elements automatically adjust themselves to
the correct length..! I don't recall the make/model, but it is of American
origin, does anyone know of it..?

73 Ivor G6URP

I think it is called the SteppIR. Too rich for my pocket book.

Dee, N8UZE

"Dee Flint" wrote in
:


My main HF rig and my husband's main HF rig both have built in tuners.
Both work pretty well. However they do not have the range of
outboard tuners.

I should have noted large range and balanced/unbalanced output. My
IC-761 has an autotuner on it that works pretty well with my vertical
antenna. The dipole is run with balanced line, and needs a different
tuner.


A lot of commericial and military equipment have built in tuners with
quite significant tuning ranges. Of course this comes at a price so
amateur gear doesn't have as much range in their tuning capacity on
the built in tuners.

Size can be an issue too. The IC 761's tuner is a pretty tiny
thing. I had to take an IC 765's autotuner 9 (very similar) apart once to
repair it, and it was around the size of one of the mfj tiny tuners.

A little bigger components, plus a 4:1 balun, and they would have
it.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

On Mar 4, 7:09?pm, Mike Coslo wrote:

. Lots of Hams today are restricted to
one antenna, yet they would like all band operation. I think it would be a
great idea for a manufacturer to have a transciever that included a tuner
right in the rig itself.

Many rigs offer that as an option. For example, the Elecraft K2 can be
equipped with the optional KAT2 internal automatic antenna tuner. In
my experience, the KAT2 can match at least a 10:1 SWR, if not more. It
doesn't have
manual adjustments, however - it's a form of autotuner.

The 100 watt version of the K2 can be equipped with the
matching external tuner.

One interesting feature of these autotuners is that they
automatically reduce power to a few watts while the tuning routine is
operating.

I don't know of any solidstate HF ham rig with a *manual*
tuner built-in.

73 de Jim, N2EY