wrote:
On Mar 5, 3:09�pm, Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 3, 8:23pm, Dave Heil wrote:
I find it impressive that Hallicrafters made so many different
receiver models in so few years (say, 1945-1960).
Loads and loads. �Most were variations on a common theme
with styling
changes though octal tubes might have been replaced by loctals or miniat
ure 7 or 9 pin types.

Hallicrafters never went for loctals in a big way; they were used only
where there was no other choice at the time. Your variations-on-a-
theme idea is correct; notice how similar the SX-42 and SX-62 are on
the inside.

The SX-42 is what brought the loctals to mind. Perhaps the '43 had 'em
too. If you look at the long line of Hallicrafters stuff, the S-40 was
basically a Sky Buddy with an S-meter and an extra stage.


The 'A-4 was the best of the period. �The models with the Collins
vernier tuning knob were the best of the best.

IMHO Collins made a design mistake by putting such a fast tuning rate
(100 kc. per knob turn) on the 75A-4. The reduction knob fixed that.

A few years ago, a small company began manufacturing a reduction knob
for the 75A-4, machined out of solid brass. Functional and
attractive.

I noted them when I saw the ads in Electric Radio. The price was very dear.

The 75A-4 is the first receiver I know of that included passband
tuning as a standard feature.

I think you're right. �My 75A-3 came with a Universal Service
(predecessor to today's Universal Radio) PTO mod which plugs
into the
NBFM socket. �The Collins winged emblem was removed, a hole
drilled in
the spot and a long 1/4" shaft from the PBT box ran through the
hole.
An engraved plate was mounted on the panel and the shaft was
fitted with a miniature knob.

How did it provide PBT? The 75A-4 PBT is entirely mechanical; it works
by rotating the PTO and the BFO controls simultaneously, but so that
their frequencies move in opposite directions. The linearity of both
oscillators is such that the received carrier frequency does not move.

I'm going to have to dig out the paperwork on the Universal Service unit
(which I got copies of just a year or two back) and let you know.

�A mod for the AGC time constant was also added. �The
thing is nearly the equal to a 75A-4.

NICE!

The CW filter I have is the 800 Hz unit. One of these days I may
replace it with an Inrad unit. I'll have to juggle things a bit to
match the modern Collins mechanical filter to the radio.

That was
followed by the light gray, low profile styling of the KWM-2/2A and
S-Line in the late fifties.
Which changed the game completely.
Everybody began jumping on that band wagon. �
Heathkit came up with the
"poor man's S-Line"; Drake introduced the 1-A, 2-A and 2-B and
TR-3;
Swan introduced monoband and multiband transceivers;
Hallicrafters and
National also began producing smaller, lighter separates and
transceivers.

IIRC the 1-A predated the S-line and KWM-2.

I think you'll find that all of them hit the market in '57.

It was a revolutionary
design; small, light and compact at a time when even inexpensive
receivers were big and heavy. Note the tiny, taller-than-it-is-wide
front panel and the very deep chassis.

Yes. The 1-A was also a good example of the Drake copper plated
chassis. Unfortunately it was built as an SSB-only receiver. There
were no provisions for a narrow filter for CW or a wider one for AM. In
fact, the BFO could not be turned off at all. I sold a number of rigs
after coming back stateside and the Drake 1-A was one of them.

The 1-A had passband tuning
too, but it was implemented by having a tunable LC filter at the last
IF.

That sort of thing was Drake stock and trade until the R-4C. The low
frequency IF filters really worked quite well in the Drake units.

The 2-A and 2-B are excellent receivers for their price and
complexity, and are prized today. But they were a dead end in one way:
there was no matching transmitter that could transceive with them.

In the time when they were introduced, many folks were still using
separates. I've kept my 2-B because it really is a classic and performs
well today. The matching 2-BQ adds a lot to the receiver.

What the KWM-2 and S-line did was to make "transceiving" popular.

Well, they made it popular for those with lots of money.

The KWM-1 and a few other rigs like the legendary Cosmophone (the
first true full-featured HF amateur transceiver) had been the first
manufactured amateur HF rigs to use the same tunable oscillator to
control both the transmitter and receiver, but they did not achieve
wide popularity.

If I recall correctly, there were identical-looking models with two
different power output levels.

Indeed, a homebrew 40 meter *CW* transceiver built around a surplus
BC-453 was described in a 1954 QST, probably the first published use
of the idea in amateur radio. It even had full QSK. But it was ahead
of its time.

You've aroused my curiosity. I'll have to dig through the back issues
and check it out. There's a '453 lying about here somewhere.

The KWM-2 and S-line took transceiving to another level. Not only were
they smaller and lighter than their predecessors, they had relatively
few controls. They made SSB more popular with hams by reducing the
cost and size and eliminating the job of zerobeating the transmitter.
Tune an SSB station correctly and the transmitter was automatically on
the right frequency.

I have to disagree with the reduction of cost. When the KWM-2 was
introduced, my dad made a little less than $6,000 per year gross pay as
a Miami Herald reporter. That transceiver would have cost about a
quarter of a year's pay. Fast forward a bit. When I bought a Ten-Tec
Omni VI, the new cost was a small fraction of a year's pay and that rig
offered features only dreamed about at the time of the introduction of
the Collins rig. The KWM-2 was smaller and lighter but an HT-32B and an
HQ-170 would have been cheaper by hundreds of dollars.

Add to this the grounded-grid linear amplifier and things really
changed. High power 'phone became not only less expensive but a lot
smaller and lighter. Transceivers and matched-pair separates became
the new paradigm in HF ham gear; AM wasn't part of that.

There are a couple of "duh" factors buried in there for us to mull over.
It would have been possible for radio amateurs to have built and used
grounded-grid linear amps for use with AM rigs much earlier. A rig such
as the Johnson Ranger would have driven one to a KW AM input with ease.

Compare the Heathkit line of 1964-65 with what they were selling just
5 years earlier for just one example.

You're right. Plated modulated AM rigs were gone from the line. You
either got a small and light SSB rig or you bought a Novice type rig
like the DX-60 with controlled carrier AM built in.

IMHO what turned the tide were two now-classic HF rigs:
the Yaesu
FT-101 and the Kenwood TS-520.
I'd toss in the Yaesu tube-type rigs such as the
FTDX-560 and 570.

Well, sort of. They had QC problems and were really competition for
the likes of Swan, who did the same lots-of-watts-from-sweep-tubes
game.

Right, but they were rigs which helped the Japanese penetrate the U.S.
amateur radio market. One rig which we omitted was the Kenwood TS-511
which predated the '520.

They did offer extras but you should look at the TS-520's receiver
specs. �They're dismal. �

But you have to ask "compared to what?" Plus they were almost all
"solid state", which was a selling point even if performance suffered.

I suppose you're right, but having a reliable solid state receiver which
will perform poorly for a long, long time, doesn't seem like much of a
sales tool.


Consider the TS-520S, for example.
It did the usual 80-10 meter SSB
job pretty well. But it also gave a choice of AGC fast/slow/off, an
optional narrow CW filter that was pretty good, RIT/XIT,
160 meters
and WWV/JJY, fan-cooled finals, plus a built-in AC
power supply.
Yep. �It served pretty well as an everyman's rig and
would have been
much better if the receiver section had been better design.

Agreed, but for the time and price it was decent enough. Point is,
it opened the door.

As sales types say, "There's lots of sizzle"--and the prices were low.

�The
Japanese were not the only ones with this problem. �
Heath's early solid
state receiver, the HW-303 was an absolute clunker in this regard.

I think you mean the SB-303.

Yes. That's the one.

And yes it was - very sensitive but at
the cost of dynamic range.

....and not only dynamic range. The 2nd order, 3rd order and IMD figures
are were all terrible. I'd have hated to have been the owner of one of
those with a guy running a KW in my neighborhood.

Hammarlund made one valiant effort to stave off the JA's with the
introduction of the solid state HQ-215. �I have one of those and
it is a
pretty darned good receiver. �It has an edgewise drum dial
with 1 KC
readout, has fixed, selectable USB/LSB and a variable BFO for
CW. �It
has a preselector in the front end, offers AUX band
positions and places
for three Collins mechanical filters. �The mixing scheme is the
same as
the S-Line and it has the same 200 KC band segments. �There are
input/output ports on the rear panel so that the receiver can be
slaved
to a 32S-whatever transmitter for transceive use. �I think it was
first
offered about 1967.

Correct on all counts. It was meant to be a solid-state 75S-3. But
never quite got there.

Actually it did get there. It wasn't perfect, but it was good. The
problem is that there was no matching transmitter and the receivers
didn't exactly fly off the shelves.

Hallicrafters made the almost-all-solid-state
FPM-300 transceiver a few years later, too.

That was a loser from the git go. It offered no CW filters and didn't
(I don't think) offer 1 KHz readout. I think that was after Bill
Halligan sold the firm to Wilcox Gay.

Its drum dial inspired the Southgate Type 4 (receiver) and Type 7
(transceiver) dials. But they use all-gear-drive.

That should be quite solid.

I just checked the HQ-215 and a single turn of the tuning knob equals 15
KHz. That was respectable in its day. My Orion, as I've set it up for
CW, tunes about 1.65 KHz per knob revolution. If I tap a button, the
rate changes to about 6 KHz per revolution. It ratio can be set higher
or lower. At the lowest step setting, one revolution provides about 65 Hz.

It should be remembered that there were some colossal also-rans in
that period, too. B&W made their 6100 transmitter with its multiknob
mixing synthesizer, obviously inspired by commercial/military sets
like the R-1051. Stable but poorly adapted to amateur HF operation.

That was a blunder. The 6100 was every bit as big and heavy as its
AM/CW only 5100 and this at a time when others were moving to smaller
and lighter gear.

The legendary Squires Sanders SS-1R was poised to give Collins a good
run for the money, but without a matching transmitter, not many hams
were going to spend S-line-level dollars for it.

That receiver was ahead of its time, but nobody came to the party. As a
result, they're very rare and bring lots of money on today's market.

Some folks criticized amateurs for being "slow" to use solid-state HF
rigs, but there was a reason for caution. More than one early SS rig
had come to grief, like the Hallicrafters FPM-200 of the early 1960s
and the EF Johnson Avenger transceiver, of which only about a dozen
were made. Avenger was a decent rig but cost so much to make that EFJ
never produced more, knowing they wouldn't sell. EFJ never again made
an amateur HF transceiver, and was soon not making HF ham gear at all.

We can draw a comparison to those folks who lost out during the battle
between Panasonic and Sony in the videotape format war. Those folks
were slow to change to DVD players and are being even slower still in
going HD-DVD or Blu-Ray. It appears that the Blu-Ray format is the
winner and that people will begin to purchase those units as the prices
come down.

Central Electronics pioneered the no-tune transmitter (with all
tubes!) back in the late 1950s, and was poised to market a matching
receiver (the 100-R) which was reportedly as good or better than the
75S-3. But the company was bought for some patents and other contracts
and was soon out of the amateur market. The sole 100-R prototype
survives to this day.

I'll bet that one is worth a fortune. The 100V and 200V transmitters go
for a great deal and they aren't all that rare. I've never owned one
but I've had my hands on a few. The only Central Electronics gear I've
owned have been 10-B's and 20A's along with their small monitor scope
and a sideband receiving adapter (phasing type like the transmitters).

OTOH, Southgate Radio is still building rigs after 40+ years...

Heh.

Not just price but price/performance/features combo.
For example, try
to think of a US-made HF amateur transceiver that
had the following:
- 100 watt output class
- 6146 finals, not sweep tubes
- Sharp CW filter
- RIT/XIT
- AGC off/slow/fast
That's quite a number of preconditions.

Not really, IMHO, and they're pretty basic things, easily implemented
with 1960s technology.

Well, that leaves us discussing what was built vs. what might have been
built.

�I don't think there were any.

Exactly.

The Heath SB-102 comes close. �

Not really. It doesn't have RIT/XIT, and you can't easily add it.

Actually, you can. I've added it to my HW-101A. The mod is applicable
to the SB-100 through SB-102. There's a single mini-toggle switch and a
pot (with matching green Heath knob) added to the upper right quadrant
of the panel. My HW-101 has an added divide by four calibrator as well
for 25 KHz markers.

Can't turn off the AGC nor adjust its time constant either.

You could easily add a switch to implement several AGC time constants.

Yeah, I know--Heath didn't build 'em that way.

The Drake TR-4CW comes close (6JB6's).

Only if you get the model that had both RIT and the sharp filter,
which was only produced for a short time. Blink and you missed it.

That was the last model variant. Remember that those Drake transceiver
used *three* sweep tubes in the output for a bit more oomph. The C-Line
transmitters used a pair.

Plus check the price of a TR4-CW with power supply and speaker. Ouch!

Guys argued with Drake for ages about the inclusion of CW filters and
RIT in the transceivers. The Drake folks couldn't understand how anyone
would need such things. Amateur radio is much more market driven today.
The lower end rigs are driven by cost and the upper end gear is driven
by DXers and contesters demanding performance.

By comparison, the TS-520S had all of that and more, even if the rx
wasn't as good.

DXers and contesters weren't buying them though. When Kenwood began
marketing TS-830's, TS-930's and TS-940's, the power user types began
buying them. Kenwood went really well through the TS-850's and
TS-950's, then quite building competitive rigs. The TS-2000 is a dog
with lots of bells and whistles. It does everything from DC to
daylight--poorly.

Digi-Key got its start about the same time as Ten Tec - 1968
or so.
Their name comes from the fact that the company got
started by selling
digital ICs (RTL!) in small quantities to hams so they could build
solid-state Morse Code keyers. Then they just kept
growing, 'but the
name stayed.
They've done phenomenally well. �Many of the old line distributors

are just plain gone.

Newark and Allied are still around.

Newark is a first rate outfit. Allied is the bottom of the distribution
barrel. I generally buy from Mouser or Digikey. For bargains, I shop
All Electronics or Ocean State.

Nor are they overly ornate. They are functional and
attractive just as they are.
Agreed. �I've often wondered if any of the modern gear will be
functional/repairable in forty or fifty years. �My guess is that i
t will
not.

I think it will be, but in different ways:

The first way will be the renovators, who make a few good rigs from a
pile of problem sets. This is already starting to happen; look on ebay
for "TS-940" and you will see lots of parts for sale.

Okay. Gone are the days when you reach into bins of transistor or IC's
and expect to be able to repair much of anything. Large scale
integrations and specialty chips took care of most of that.
Kenwood rigs in particular seem to suffer. The 930's, 850's and 940's
are examples of rigs where the displays and display drivers aren't
available any longer.


The second way will be the rebuilders, who will make replacement PCBs
using parts available then. A much harder go at first, but given the
automation possibilities now, who knows what the future could do.

Jim, I just can't see that being profitable.

Look up the stuff made by
one of my Elmers, master homebrewer W2LYH.
(several QST articles).
I know a few guys who still operate the W6TC HBR series of
receivers that they or others constructed. �

There are folks still building HBRs today, from scratch.

I'd think that getting some of the parts could be really difficult.

But with all due respect to those designs, do check out W2LYH's
designs, such as the 23 tube receiver or the ultrastable Frankling
VFO. His construction is an art in itself; no ornamentation needed.

I shall check 'em out.

I often wonder what happened to his rig. I don't think I want to know.

Maybe a collector got it. That'd be best case scenario.

I also of quite a number of quality
homebrew linear amps which are still put on the air on a regular
basis.

Yep. Also a number of SB-200s, SB-220s, L-4s and similar amps are
pounding out the watts today, often with upgrades and modernizations.

Surely! Softkey circuits, inrush protection and the like have been
added or band have been added. My example of the last model in the
SB-220 line, the HL-2200 (a restyled SB-220 in brown clothing) is doing
a great job as a 6 meter only pair of 3-500Z's at about 900w output.
It has the softkey mod so that any modern transceiver can safely key the
amp.


Dave K8MN

On Mar 6, 12:56Â am, Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 5, 3:09�pm, Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 3, 8:23pm, Dave Heil wrote:

A few years ago, a small company began manufacturing
a reduction knob
for the 75A-4, machined out of solid brass. Functional and
attractive.

I noted them when I saw the ads in Electric Radio. Â
The price was very dear.

$125 IIRC.

How did it provide PBT?

I'm going to have to dig out the paperwork
on the Universal Service unit
(which I got copies of just a year or two back) and let you know.

Will be good to know.

The CW filter I have is the 800 Hz unit. Â One of these days I may
replace it with an Inrad unit. Â I'll have to juggle things a bit to
match the modern Collins mechanical filter to the radio.

I think the same company that made the reduction knob made exact plug-
in filters. Dunno if they made a CW one.

At the University ham shack we had two 75S-3s. One had the
200 Hz filter, aka "the ringmaster". But boy could they hear!

IIRC the 1-A predated the S-line and KWM-2.

I think you'll find that all of them hit the market in '57.

The KWM-2 came after the original S-line (75S-1/32S-1) Check your old
QSTs, you'll see the 1-A advertised well before the KWM-2.

It was a revolutionary
design; small, light and compact at a time when even
inexpensive
receivers were big and heavy. Note the tiny, taller-than-it-is-wide
front panel and the very deep chassis.

Unfortunately it was built as an SSB-only receiver. Â There
were no provisions for a narrow filter for CW or a wider one for
AM. Â In
fact, the BFO could not be turned off at all. Â I sold a number of rig
s
after coming back stateside and the Drake 1-A was one of them.

1-A was Drake's entry into the ham receiver market; previously
they had only made things like lowpass filters. Their idea was to
cut the cost of SSB to the bone by making a receiver specific to
the mode and leaving out anything not needed for SSB. Hence no
diode detector, no BFO-off, no narrow filter, etc. But it had PBT,
which also gave sideband selection, an S-meter and AGC that
worked on SSB, and was very stable.

That mode-specific thing inspired many of the Southgate receivers.

The 2-A and 2-B are excellent receivers for their price and
complexity, and are prized today. But they were a dead end
in one way:
there was no matching transmitter that could transceive with
them.

In the time when they were introduced, many folks were still using
separates. Â I've kept my 2-B because it really is a classic and
performs
well today. Â The matching 2-BQ adds a lot to the receiver.

About 15 years ago I walked away from a hamfest table that
had a 2-B/2-BQ combo for $75. "To think about it". Oh fer dumb.....

What the KWM-2 and S-line did was to make
"transceiving" popular.

Well, they made it popular for those with lots of money.

Not just those folks. The idea got wide publicity and led to lots
more rigs at a lot lower prices.

If I recall correctly, there were identical-looking models with two
different power output levels.

Cosmophone 35 and Cosmophone 1000.

Indeed, a homebrew 40 meter *CW* transceiver built
around a surplus
BC-453 was described in a 1954 QST, probably the
first published use
of the idea in amateur radio. It even had full QSK.
But it was ahead
of its time.

You've aroused my curiosity. Â
I'll have to dig through the back issues
and check it out. Â There's a '453 lying about here somewhere.

IIRC the author's last name was Deane. I do not know of any earlier
HF amateur transceiver being described in QST or any other
publication.

The KWM-2 and S-line took transceiving to another level. Not only were
they smaller and lighter than their predecessors, they had relatively
few controls. They made SSB more popular with hams by reducing the
cost and size and eliminating the job of zerobeating the transmitter.
Tune an SSB station correctly and the transmitter was automatically on
the right frequency.

I have to disagree with the reduction of cost. Â
When the KWM-2 was
introduced, my dad made a little less than
$6,000 per year gross pay as
a Miami Herald reporter. Â That transceiver would have cost about a
quarter of a year's pay.

And $6000/yr gross income was solid middle class. A family of four
could live very well on $6K, 50 years ago.

What I meant was that a KWM-2 and power supply/speaker cost less than
top-of-the-line separates like a 75A-4 and HT-32B.

Or compare the price of an S-line and a KWM-2.

To get an idea of the influence of the KWM-2, google "LWM-3"...


 Fast forward a bit.  When I bought a Ten-Tec
Omni VI, the new cost was a small fraction of a year's pay
and that rig
offered features only dreamed about at the time of the
introduction of
the Collins rig. Â The KWM-2 was smaller and lighter but an HT-
32B and an
HQ-170 would have been cheaper by hundreds of dollars.

Agreed. But the KWM-2 put the idea of the one-box station out
there in a big way. A lot of less-expensive transceivers with
minimal controls followed. People saw the success of the KWM-2
and designed less-expensive alternatives based on the idea.

Add to this the grounded-grid linear amplifier and things really
changed. High power 'phone became not only less expensive
but a lot
smaller and lighter. Transceivers and matched-pair separates
became
the new paradigm in HF ham gear; AM wasn't part of that.

There are a couple of "duh" factors buried in there for us to mull
over.
It would have been possible for radio amateurs to have built and
used
grounded-grid linear amps for use with AM rigs much earlier. Â A
rig such
as the Johnson Ranger would have driven one to a KW AM input
with ease.

Some hams did that but the big problem was the low efficiency of AM
linear without the use of special circuits like the Doherty, which
isn't the fastest QSY circuit.

With AM linear you only get 30-35% carrier efficiency. Which
means 300-350 watts carrier at the old 1 kW legal limit. Plus
your final tubes have to be able to dissipate 650-700 watts!
The same results could be had from a 450-watt class plate-modulated AM
rig - say, a pair of 812As modulated by a pair of 811As.

AM also required power supplies that could stand the 100% duty cycle
of the mode. The low duty cycle of early unprocessed SSB rigs meant a
lot of liberty could be taken in PSU design.

The end result was rigs like the NCX-3 and the SB-100, which cost as
much as a good receiver but were complete 100-watt SSB stations that
you could indeed set up on a card table.

When Heath introduced the SB-200 in 1954, it cost $200. Legal limit on
CW, 1200 watts PEP on SSB (input). That was a lot cheaper than the
equivalent AM, and would fit on the card table.

IOW, high power AM cost a lot of dough and a lot of space/weight. The
SSB transceiver/GG linear paradigm drastically reduced those
requirements.

Fun fact: AFAIK only two 1 kW-input-legal-limit plate-modulated AM
rigs were ever made for the amateur market: the Collins KW-1 and the
Johnson Desk Kilowatt. Total production was very limited - maybe 2000
units combined.

I can't begin to recall the number of models of legal-limit GG
amplifiers made. EFJ Thunderbolt, SB-220, Heath KL-1...

More to come...

73 de Jim, N2EY

Dave Heil wrote:

I'm going to use an old computer tower for a chassis/cabinet for a pair
of 4-400's I plan to build.

I shouldn't post late at night when I'm tired. What I meant to say was
that I plan to use the old computer tower for the power supply, not the
entire amp.

Dave K8MN

On Mar 5, 3:20Â pm, Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 3, 2:40�pm, Michael Coslo wrote:

Agreed - but in the Triple-F aesthetic (hereafter referred to as
 "The Southgate School" or TSS), not defeating function isn't enoug
h.
All choices must enhance or support functionality.

Gotcha, Jug!

Marcellus? Is that you?

IOW, "found objects".

If you're willing to get dirty and are patient, it is possible to save a
bundle by using other people's castoffs.

Not only that, but make a dent in the enormous waste stream.

I'm going to use an old computer tower for a chassis/cabinet for

[the power supply of]

a pair
of 4-400's I plan to build.

You want a Southgate type number for it?

If you're building something small, try hobby shops. Â They often have

bins of both brass, copper and aluminum sheet in various thicknesses
along with round and square tubing and rod of the same materials.

Yes, but they want you to *buy* the stuff! My adapters were made from
scraps.

Wood with a thin sheet of flashing aluminum is one way to get the shieldin
g.

BTDT, except used old litho plates turned print-side-in.

TSS is about simplicity and functionality, not minimalism. If staining
or finishing improves the functionality, it is done. For example, the
shack tabletop consists of a layer of oriented strandboard (for
strength) topped by a layer of masonite (for a smooth hard surface).
This combination (actually a composite) was chosen because it was the
least expensive at the time. The masonite was given a couple of coats
of varnish because doing so improved the functionality.

The tempered Masonite, no doubt. Â The front panel of W4JBP's 1941
homebrew transmitter is of that stuff, painted black.

Exactly. Wood prices have changed, though; today a tabletop might be
AC plywood.
Depends what's on the cull cart.

Possibly. I've had some experience building speaker cabinets (clones
of the Altec A-7 "Voice of the Theater", JBL folded horns, for
example) and the trick is to build solid from the beginning.

I've shared the experience and still remember all of the kerfing that
went into getting those curves right. Â Add a 15" Electrovoice SRO
speaker (which was about 3db better than anything else on the market at
the time), top is with some massive horn tweeters and you had something.

The ones I helped build in the 1960s are still in service.

I've always wondered what the fascination with "antiques" is. I can
understand the fascination with craftsmanship, design, practicality
and materials, though.

I think there a couple of classes of antique furniture items. Â There
are
those things which can only be viewed and those things which can be
used. Â A small, antique ladies chair might not be something you could

use, but an antique dining room suite or an antique sideboard can be
quite utilitarian.

The former belongs in a museum, the latter in a home.

The term I would use is "classic" or "timeless". Look at some Mission
or Shaker furniture - it does not appear "antique" or dated. That's
what TSS is all about, applied to Amateur Radio (and a limited
budget!)

I had to grin. Â I believe that 2x4's, 4x4's, plywood or hollow core
doors will never go out of style.

I rip 2x4s in half lengthwise; they're all you need for most shack
furniture. Also do an offset cut that gives one piece 1-1/2" square
and another that's 2x1-1/2" from a single 2x4. Table saw makes it
easy.

I did one table with a hollow core door many years ago (it was free)
but they are too flimsy and too expensive for TSS approval now.

The shack table in the website picture was designed for Field Day use,
25 years ago. The top was the maximum size that would fit in the back
of a VW Rabbit with the rear seat taken out. All the legs and braces
are bolted on in such a way that the whole thing breaks down into one
package. Does the job for now but a replacement is in the works.
Maybe.

 There's no "Captain Nemo walking into
his cabin on the Nautilus" look here, but the place is attractive and
utilitarian.

IMHO the true art of a hamshack is having things set up in such a way
that you just want to sit down and start operating as soon as you see
the place.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
On Mar 6, 12:56� am, Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 5, 3:09�pm, Dave Heil wrote:

But you have to ask "compared to what?" Plus they were almost all
"solid state", which was a selling point even if performance suffered.
I suppose you're right, but having a reliable solid state receiver which
will perform poorly for a long, long time, doesn't seem like much of a
sales tool.

Remember too that in the 1970s US ham radio was growing fast. This was
right after the 1968-1969 "incentive licensing" changes which some
said were going to destroy amateur radio. The numbers tell a different
story.

They surely do. About the time I first became licensed, I think there
were about 300k radio amateurs in the U.S. and only about 100k in the
entire rest of the world.

Hallicrafters made the almost-all-solid-state
FPM-300 transceiver a few years later, too.
That was a loser from the git go. � It offered no CW filters and didn'
t
(I don't think) offer 1 KHz readout. � I think that was after Bill
Halligan sold the firm to Wilcox Gay.

Which brings up another point: In that time period, a number of the
classic US ham radio manufacturers were losing their founders, either
through sale of the company or retirements, etc.

Right. The Drake firm stayed in the family and Swan stayed with the
original owner until he sold it to Cubic, circa 1980.

Its drum dial inspired the Southgate Type 4 (receiver) and Type 7
(transceiver) dials. But they use all-gear-drive.

That should be quite solid.

It's very solid, and so easily done that I wonder why it hasn't been
done more by others. The tuning cap is from a BC-221, and there's none
better anywhere.

I agree.

I just checked the HQ-215 and a single turn of the tuning knob equals 15
KHz. � That was respectable in its day. � My Orion, as I've set it
up for
CW, tunes about 1.65 KHz per knob revolution. � If I tap a button, the

rate changes to about 6 KHz per revolution. � It ratio can be set high
er
or lower. � At the lowest step setting, one revolution provides about
65 Hz.

All Southgate Radio receivers from the Type 3 onward have had slow
tuning rates - typically 5 to 7 kHz per turn. That's about 1969 to the
present.

....and that's a good tuning rate.

The 6100 was every bit as big and heavy as its
AM/CW only 5100 and this at a time when others were moving to smaller
and lighter gear.

Yes but that was the least of it. It cost almost as much as a 75S-3 or
T-4X but there was no matching rx that could transceive with it. And
while the military might have a use for those multiknob synthesizers,
for HF ham radio they're just not the thing to use.

Nope. Around 1964, National introduced the solid state, synthesized
HRO-500. They were expensive problem children. There have been
numerous problems with the PLL circuitry. I bought one in 1997 and it
had (Surprise!) PLL problems. I sold it.


About the only company besides Collins that was able to come into the
ham radio market at the top was Signal One - which didn't last.


Kachina tried it and that didn't last very long.




Well, that leaves us discussing what was built vs. what might have been
built.

Point is, the Japanese rigs put those features in from the get-go,
while the
American rigmakers didn't.

Right. It was a new game. The JA manufacturers recognized that bells
and whistles would lure buyers.

Not really. It doesn't have RIT/XIT, and you can't easily add it.
Actually, you can. � I've added it to my HW-101A. � The mod is app
licable
to the SB-100 through SB-102. � There's a single mini-toggle switch an
d a
pot (with matching green Heath knob) added to the upper right quadrant
of the panel. � My HW-101 has an added divide by four calibrator as we
ll
for 25 KHz markers.

How is it done? Varactor in the PTO?

Yep, with a relay switching scheme.

The Drake TR-4CW comes close (6JB6's).
Only if you get the model that had both RIT and the sharp filter,
which was only produced for a short time. Blink and you missed it.
That was the last model variant. � Remember that those Drake transceiv
er
used *three* sweep tubes in the output for a bit more oomph. � The C-L
ine
transmitters used a pair.

Yes, and they were supposed to be matched. Some folks have worked up
mods to use 6146s in those rigs.

....and some of us bought up 17JB6's and all of the new 6JB6's we could find.

Plus check the price of a TR4-CW with power supply and speaker. Ouch!
Guys argued with Drake for ages about the inclusion of CW filters and
RIT in the transceivers. � The Drake folks couldn't understand how any
one
would need such things. �

Interesting! I always thought the reason they were left out was so
that folks would buy the separates.

Not exactly. Drake figure that anyone who wanted to use CW *would* buy
the separates. They just didn't figure that there was a market for
transceivers among regular users of CW. The light finally dawned.
Of course that the meager CW features of the TR-4CW gave way to the
advanced features of the TR-5 and TR-7.

Amateur radio is much more market driven today.
The lower end rigs are driven by cost and the upper end gear is driven
by DXers and contesters demanding performance.

Sherwood has tested the Elecraft K3. Next issue of QST will carry a
Product Review of it too.

Yep. The numbers look very, very good. These days though, the
difference between very good and very, very good is just a smidgen.

By comparison, the TS-520S had all of that and more, even if the rx
wasn't as good.
DXers and contesters weren't buying them though.

'Course not. But they weren't the target market, either. The SB-101/
HW-101 crowd were.

Uh-huh. It marked the end game for Heath. The company just didn't
realize it right away.

I remember that towards the end of its run the HW-101 price reached
$449, which was almost double its introductory price less than a
decade earlier. That was without power supply, speaker, mike or sharp
filter. And you had to build it. FT-101/TS-520S took that market!

Right. Don't forget that the JA rigs not only had an inboard,
multi-voltage AC power supply; they included a DC supply for mobile use
as well. Neither of the two rigs mentioned actually came with a CW
filter. Those were optional accessories.

When Kenwood began
marketing TS-830's, TS-930's and TS-940's, the power user types began
buying them. � Kenwood went really well through the TS-850's and
TS-950's, then quite building competitive rigs. � The TS-2000 is a dog

with lots of bells and whistles. � It does everything from DC to
daylight--poorly.

There are persistent rumors that Kenwood has given up the serious
amateur market. Sad if true,

It has to be more than a rumor. The TS-2000 is the top of their line.
The TS-950 hasn't been made in years and years.

The TS-570 is also highly regarded.

It is a good transceiver, though many don't recognize it. K8MFO used
the variant which included 6m one as his main rig for some time.

Newark and Allied are still around.

Newark is a first rate outfit. � Allied is the bottom of the distribut
ion
barrel. � I generally buy from Mouser or Digikey. � For bargains,
I shop
All Electronics or Ocean State.

I just look in the Southgate inventory.

I can do that with many items. There are some modern things which I
just have to buy.

The first way will be the renovators, who make a few good rigs from a
pile of problem sets. This is already starting to happen; look on ebay
for "TS-940" and you will see lots of parts for sale.

Okay. � Gone are the days when you reach into bins of transistor or IC
's
and expect to be able to repair much of anything. � Large scale
integrations and specialty chips took care of most of that.
Kenwood rigs in particular seem to suffer. � The 930's, 850's and 940'
s
are examples of rigs where the displays and display drivers aren't
available any longer.

Agreed but there will be some rigs that have other problems but good
displays.

Oh yes, but those fluorescent displays, unlike the typical LED displays,
go bad with time and use.

The second way will be the rebuilders, who will make replacement PCBs
using parts available then. A much harder go at first, but given the
automation possibilities now, who knows what the future could do.
Jim, I just can't see that being profitable.

Probably won't be. I suspect some folks will do it just for the heck
of doing it, though.

I knew a guy who once had machinists make him a part for a Cadillac
power seat instead of paying what he considered to be an outrageous
price for the part from GM. I think he spent about four times what GM
wanted.

And consider: $125 for a reduction tuning knob for a receiver that
went out of production more than 45 years ago?

But those receivers are apt to be around for another few decades and are
highly prized. As I recall, there's still an outfit making highly
stable digital remote VFOs for the Collins KWM-2 series.

In the bad old days PC fabrication for homebrewing meant doing layout
work, resist, etching, drilling, etc. I've done it and got good at it.
But today you just download some freeware from a PC fabrication house,
put together a circuit, develop a layout and send it by email to the
fabricator. Prices are low for small boards and the quantity is first-
rate. Plus if a couple of hams go together, or you just want spares,
it's a no-brainer. Automated manufacturing does the work.

That's been a good thing when the previous choice was to lobby FAR
Circuits to make a board or resort to doing it yourself.

There are folks still building HBRs today, from scratch.

I'd think that getting some of the parts could be really difficult.

You'd be surprised what folks have squirreled away....

Nooooooo, I don't think I would. W9ZR asked in the boatanchors
newsgroup if anyone had the bowl insulator from an ART-13. I sent him one.

In reality the only unobtanium parts are the coil forms and IF cans.
One trick is to use ARC-5 IFTs instead. But I prefer original
Southgate designs.

Those IF transformers are one of the things I was thinking about. I
have loads of large and miniature 455KC stuff, but nothing like the
higher frequency cans.

Yep. Also a number of SB-200s, SB-220s, L-4s and similar amps are
pounding out the watts today, often with upgrades and modernizations.
Surely! � Softkey circuits, inrush protection and the like have been
added or band have been added. � My example of the last model in the
SB-220 line, the HL-2200 (a restyled SB-220 in brown clothing) is doing
a great job as a 6 meter only pair of 3-500Z's at about 900w output.
It has the softkey mod so that any modern transceiver can safely key the
amp.

Exactly. Many are modded for QSK as well.

...and that's a fairly easy one. There are a couple of guys selling used
vacuum relays. Other folks go with the PIN diode switching.

Yet way back in April 1976 - 32 years ago! - the cover article in QST
was for a legal-limit solid-state HF amp. When I saw it, I figured
that it wouldn't be too many more years before hams wouldn't have any
hollow-state in their shacks....

Those 1 KW or better, solid state amps are becoming more commonplace but
prices are high and the things are still delicate. My pal N8NN runs his
FT-1000MP with a Quadra for really easy band changes and computer control.

I'm looking at the Tokyo Hi Power 1.5 KW job, but it is expensive. If
the Starkville, Mississippi gang gets their act together, we may see an
affordable high power, solid state amp in the near future.

Dave K8MN

wrote:
On Mar 5, 3:20� pm, Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 3, 2:40�pm, Michael Coslo wrote:

Agreed - but in the Triple-F aesthetic (hereafter referred to as
� "The Southgate School" or TSS), not defeating function isn't enoug
h.
All choices must enhance or support functionality.
Gotcha, Jug!

Marcellus? Is that you?

Complete with insignia!

IOW, "found objects".
If you're willing to get dirty and are patient, it is possible to save a
bundle by using other people's castoffs.

Not only that, but make a dent in the enormous waste stream.

There's no one who can reduce a waste stream like West Africans. The
seams in Coke cans are opened after the tops and bottoms are removed and
the cans are rolled flat. The become roofing material or house siding.
Black trash bags are washed and recycled. Pop bottles become water
bottles and used 55-gallon drums (previous contents unknown) are used
for making palm or cashew wine.

I'm going to use an old computer tower for a chassis/cabinet for

[the power supply of]

a pair
of 4-400's I plan to build.

You want a Southgate type number for it?

I think that'd be appropriate.

The upright case has a full metal cover, space for a cooling fan and a
shelf which can hold the rectifier board and electrolytic caps. The
bottles aren't U.S. types, they're Phillips equivalents with graphite
plates. They should hold up for a long time. I'll use Chinese
Coleman-type lantern chimneys.

If you're building something small, try hobby shops. � They often have

bins of both brass, copper and aluminum sheet in various thicknesses
along with round and square tubing and rod of the same materials.

Yes, but they want you to *buy* the stuff! My adapters were made from
scraps.

Some of us would have to buy stuff in order to have scraps. I've found
that the hobby shop stuff is not terribly expensive. They also have
round, square and sheet plastic stock. Some is clear and some is
translucent--ideal for making dial scales.

Wood with a thin sheet of flashing aluminum is one way to get the shieldin
g.

BTDT, except used old litho plates turned print-side-in.

Heck, I wouldn't even know where to find an old lithographic plate these
days. I have leftover aluminum flashing stock from, well--flashing.

TSS is about simplicity and functionality, not minimalism. If staining
or finishing improves the functionality, it is done. For example, the
shack tabletop consists of a layer of oriented strandboard (for
strength) topped by a layer of masonite (for a smooth hard surface).
This combination (actually a composite) was chosen because it was the
least expensive at the time. The masonite was given a couple of coats
of varnish because doing so improved the functionality.

The tempered Masonite, no doubt. � The front panel of W4JBP's 1941
homebrew transmitter is of that stuff, painted black.

Exactly. Wood prices have changed, though; today a tabletop might be
AC plywood.

Depends what's on the cull cart.

I don't have a place with a cull cart. I've sometimes bought
ugly-looking plywood and topped a desk with vinyl floor tile. If you
want to fancy one up, hardwood veneer isn't too pricey.

Possibly. I've had some experience building speaker cabinets (clones
of the Altec A-7 "Voice of the Theater", JBL folded horns, for
example) and the trick is to build solid from the beginning.
I've shared the experience and still remember all of the kerfing that
went into getting those curves right. � Add a 15" Electrovoice SRO
speaker (which was about 3db better than anything else on the market at
the time), top is with some massive horn tweeters and you had something.

The ones I helped build in the 1960s are still in service.

I'm pretty sure the ones we did in 1973 are still in use in Cincinnati.
I had a big Jensen folded horn cabinet in Tanzania. It had a dual
voice coil 12" subwoofer in it. That's still in Africa.

I've always wondered what the fascination with "antiques" is. I can
understand the fascination with craftsmanship, design, practicality
and materials, though.
I think there a couple of classes of antique furniture items. � There
are
those things which can only be viewed and those things which can be
used. � A small, antique ladies chair might not be something you could

use, but an antique dining room suite or an antique sideboard can be
quite utilitarian.

The former belongs in a museum, the latter in a home.

Not everyone lives like us, Jim. Some folks have houses large enough to
be homes *and* museums and the wherewithal to populate the place with
both types of antiques. I can appreciate antiques as art but we don't
have enough room for antiques we can't put to use unless they happen to
be art for the wall or items which can sit on a table for the most part.

The term I would use is "classic" or "timeless". Look at some Mission
or Shaker furniture - it does not appear "antique" or dated. That's
what TSS is all about, applied to Amateur Radio (and a limited
budget!)

I had to grin. � I believe that 2x4's, 4x4's, plywood or hollow core
doors will never go out of style.

I rip 2x4s in half lengthwise; they're all you need for most shack
furniture. Also do an offset cut that gives one piece 1-1/2" square
and another that's 2x1-1/2" from a single 2x4. Table saw makes it
easy.

You're a lightweight! My main operating position is representative of
overkill. The frame is 2x4's; the legs are 4x4's and the top is a
hollow core door. There's a two shelf console with two angled wings,
with enough roof under the first shelf for solid-state brick VHF/UHF
amps, keyers, paddles, DVK and the like.

Did I mention the six foot rack to my right?

I did one table with a hollow core door many years ago (it was free)
but they are too flimsy and too expensive for TSS approval now.

They hold up well with the 2x4 frame and 2x4 bracing.

The shack table in the website picture was designed for Field Day use,
25 years ago. The top was the maximum size that would fit in the back
of a VW Rabbit with the rear seat taken out. All the legs and braces
are bolted on in such a way that the whole thing breaks down into one
package. Does the job for now but a replacement is in the works.

Mine will break down too, but I don't think it'll fit in a Rabbit. :-)

Maybe.

� There's no "Captain Nemo walking into
his cabin on the Nautilus" look here, but the place is attractive and
utilitarian.

IMHO the true art of a hamshack is having things set up in such a way
that you just want to sit down and start operating as soon as you see
the place.

That's how it is here--unless I get sidetracked by the internet.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote in
:



Michael Coslo wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

some snippage

Sorry for the late reply on this, esp since the thread has taken a
different direction, but I though it deserved a reply....


Maybe. Another wire, mounted diagonally from the rear would have done
away with most of the pendulum action. If you're worried about
buildings shaking, even a steel mounted would have such vibrations
transfered to the projector. The wires might have even damped those
types of motion.

Using wires does not work. The reason is that buildings do not shake in
the way most people think. The building may shake in one axis, and not
another, and may shake in multiple directions, but not the same amount in
all axes, or at the same time.

This will have the effect of pulling the entire assembly in one direction
or another, depending on "whats a-shakin'", and which wire is pulling
more at the moment.

However, on a good sturdy ceiling mount, that has a resonance frequency
as high as practical, building movement is not much of a problem, unless
the building is on the verge of shaking itself apart. The reason is that
rapid pendulum damping with little movement gets rid of pendulum moment,
and that most floors tend to shake closely with the ceiling on any given
level, so the people are moving along with the image and screen.

I've never seen a professional design with wires, although I've
seen a few designed by others, and they all have damping problems, all
related to the multifilar pendulums they create. Oddly, the wire systems
I've seen were "designed" and built by engineers who thought they could
remove all the filar pendulum movement by going multifilar. That
inherently creates more complexity in movement. The answer is in that the
projector on the end of that pendulum becomes very similar to a mirror
galvanometer, greatly amplifying the movement by the time the light hits
the wall.


Absolutely! This aesthetic is in no way saying "look at me! I'm
serious art!" I would go a little further to state that some examples
of the genre are downright ridiculous - by design.

...and I'd go even further in saying that most of it is downright
ridiculous by design or otherwise.

There is room in this world for a lot of different tastes. Some I
like, some I do not. I am always careful to not call any of them
ridiculous so that I don't indadvertantly insult someone. 8^)

Kitsch is kitsch no matter who tosses the pillows with a flair.

That being said, there are examples of great beauty in there, on
the
workshop page, the telegraph sounder was gorgeous, and the pick guard
on the Stratocaster is beautiful.

I own a perfectly good '73 Strat. I'm defacing it for no one.

I have a hard time agreeing that *that* Strat was defaced. I have a white
on white Strat myself, and am happy to keep it that way, but there are a
lot of places who do custom guitar work or design:

http://www.sparrowguitars.com/
http://www.terrapinguitars.com/
http://www.warmoth.com/

Even Fender:

http://www.fender.com/customshop/home/index.php

There is actually some of this aesthetic running about in Amateur
radio, even if we don't notice it.

It isn't evident here.

I disagree, respectfully, more below.

snippage

Some kind of plating or paint is needed and it isn't practical to
paint things like the threads of screws. Key's aren't designed to
look as if they're steam powered.

Precious metal plating is not there because it is practical, all
those keys are quite embellished, and can we tell the difference between
a gold plated and a painted one in operation? They also have unneeded
shapes, and Mister Begali calls them art. I find them to be quite
beautiful, and a magnificent tour de force in mechanical design in the
prosaic function of a telegraph key, but would not try to argue that they
are somehow based on practicality.

That's pretty much my input on the subject until I have the operating are
designed and built. My shack may not be to everyone's tastes, but
hopefully I'll like it! 8^)

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Mike Coslo wrote:
Dave Heil wrote in
:



Michael Coslo wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

some snippage

Sorry for the late reply on this, esp since the thread has taken a
different direction, but I though it deserved a reply....


Maybe. Another wire, mounted diagonally from the rear would have done
away with most of the pendulum action. If you're worried about
buildings shaking, even a steel mounted would have such vibrations
transfered to the projector. The wires might have even damped those
types of motion.

Using wires does not work. The reason is that buildings do not shake in
the way most people think. The building may shake in one axis, and not
another, and may shake in multiple directions, but not the same amount in
all axes, or at the same time.

Okay, so what you earlier described as the motor fan causing a pendulum
motion wasn't exactly correct then. What you've described could be
described as random orbital in nature or, at times, even multiple pendula.

This will have the effect of pulling the entire assembly in one direction
or another, depending on "whats a-shakin'", and which wire is pulling
more at the moment.

I'm thinking that if you've got a building doing *that much shaking*,
you've got more problems than a projector moving a bit.

However, on a good sturdy ceiling mount, that has a resonance frequency
as high as practical, building movement is not much of a problem, unless
the building is on the verge of shaking itself apart. The reason is that
rapid pendulum damping with little movement gets rid of pendulum moment,
and that most floors tend to shake closely with the ceiling on any given
level, so the people are moving along with the image and screen.

I'm getting dizzy already, Mike.

I've never seen a professional design with wires, although I've
seen a few designed by others, and they all have damping problems, all
related to the multifilar pendulums they create. Oddly, the wire systems
I've seen were "designed" and built by engineers who thought they could
remove all the filar pendulum movement by going multifilar. That
inherently creates more complexity in movement. The answer is in that the
projector on the end of that pendulum becomes very similar to a mirror
galvanometer, greatly amplifying the movement by the time the light hits
the wall.

This is getting really close to becoming a Cecil moment. :-)

Absolutely! This aesthetic is in no way saying "look at me! I'm
serious art!" I would go a little further to state that some examples
of the genre are downright ridiculous - by design.
...and I'd go even further in saying that most of it is downright
ridiculous by design or otherwise.

There is room in this world for a lot of different tastes. Some I
like, some I do not. I am always careful to not call any of them
ridiculous so that I don't indadvertantly insult someone. 8^)

You must never be so sensitive about what people might think of your
opinion that you become afraid to express it. If you think that a
certain style is kitschy or silly, you're permitted to say so. So am I.

Kitsch is kitsch no matter who tosses the pillows with a flair.

That being said, there are examples of great beauty in there, on
the
workshop page, the telegraph sounder was gorgeous, and the pick guard
on the Stratocaster is beautiful.

I own a perfectly good '73 Strat. I'm defacing it for no one.

I have a hard time agreeing that *that* Strat was defaced. I have a white
on white Strat myself, and am happy to keep it that way, but there are a
lot of places who do custom guitar work or design:

http://www.sparrowguitars.com/
http://www.terrapinguitars.com/
http://www.warmoth.com/

Even Fender:

http://www.fender.com/customshop/home/index.php

Sure. Places which will do nearly anything for a buck abound. Some of
the work is skillfully done, but still ends up looking tacky.

There is actually some of this aesthetic running about in Amateur
radio, even if we don't notice it.

It isn't evident here.

I disagree, respectfully, more below.

snippage

Some kind of plating or paint is needed and it isn't practical to
paint things like the threads of screws. Key's aren't designed to
look as if they're steam powered.

Precious metal plating is not there because it is practical, all
those keys are quite embellished, and can we tell the difference between
a gold plated and a painted one in operation?

No, we can't. That doesn't stop the gold plated one from looking better
to most of us. Gold doesn't oxidize the same as most other metals. It
doesn't need to be polished often. Gold in contacts is used where low
conact resistance is desired. In the old days, keys usually had
appreciable current running through them. With low current, solid state
circuits, a little oxidation on contacts can result in a keying circuit
malfunctioning.

No keys which are currently produced are made to look as if they're
steam powered.

They also have unneeded
shapes, and Mister Begali calls them art.

Some folks think an abstract painting done by a Chimpanzee is art. I
don't agree with them. Begali keys are well made. They're attractive
to some.

I find them to be quite
beautiful, and a magnificent tour de force in mechanical design in the
prosaic function of a telegraph key, but would not try to argue that they
are somehow based on practicality.

Keys got prosaic function? The Begalis, like all other keyer paddles
are designed to do a certain job. They can be as attractive as one can
make them, but if they cannot do the job reasonably well, they fail.

That's pretty much my input on the subject until I have the operating are
designed and built. My shack may not be to everyone's tastes, but
hopefully I'll like it! 8^)

You're the only guy who needs approve.

Dave K8MN

On Mar 9, 5:00Â pm, Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 6, 12:56� am, Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 5, 3:09�pm, Dave Heil wrote:

Remember too that in the 1970s US ham radio was growing fast. This was
right after the 1968-1969 "incentive licensing" changes which some
said were going to destroy amateur radio. The numbers tell a different
story.

They surely do. Â About the time I first became licensed, I think ther
e
were about 300k radio amateurs in the U.S. and only about 100k in the
entire rest of the world.

I'm not sure of the exact year you were licensed but if it was in the
1960s the number of US hams was about 250K not 300K. As for the rest
of the world, 100K back then was pretty accurate *except* for Japan's
4th class licenses.

In that time period, a number of the
classic US ham radio manufacturers were losing their founders, either
through sale of the company or retirements, etc.

Right. Â The Drake firm stayed in the family and Swan stayed with the
original owner until he sold it to Cubic, circa 1980.

And we see what happened...

All Southgate Radio receivers from the Type 3 onward have had slow
tuning rates - typically 5 to 7 kHz per turn. That's about 1969 to the
present.

...and that's a good tuning rate.

I used to wonder why most older equipment tuned so fast. One reason
was cost; a simple string or pinch drive cost a lot less than gears.
But even expensive stuff like the HROs had fast tuning by Southgate
standards.

I think the way hams operated in the past was a big reason. Split
operation was pretty standard even before crystal control was common
in ham rigs, so if you called CQ, an answer might be anywhere in the
band.

Around 1964, National introduced the solid state, synthesized
HRO-500. Â They were expensive problem children. Â There have been

numerous problems with the PLL circuitry. Â I bought one in 1997 and i
t
had (Surprise!) PLL problems. I sold it.

Even with a working PLL, the '500 had bad intermod and dynamic range
problems for such an expensive rx.

About the only company besides Collins that was able to come into the
ham radio market at the top was Signal One - which didn't last.

Kachina tried it and that didn't last very long.

Kachina had an entirely new concept: the computer-controlled rig
without a front panel. That still hasn't really caught on.

Well, that leaves us discussing what was built vs. what might have been

built.

Point is, the Japanese rigs put those features in from the get-go,
while the
American rigmakers didn't.

Right. Â It was a new game. Â The JA manufacturers recognized that
bells
and whistles would lure buyers.

Not just bells and whistles but basic things like RIT, sharp filters,
decent dial drives and the ability to turn off the AGC.
Built in or as options, not as mods.

Varactor in the PTO?

Yep, with a relay switching scheme.

The Southgate Type 6 and Type 7 achieve RIT without a varactor diode.
In fact, there are no solid state devices at all in either rig except
for two 1N34As in the SWR bridge of the Transmatch.

Guys argued with Drake for ages about the inclusion of CW filters and
RIT in the transceivers. � The Drake folks couldn't understand
how any
one
would need such things. �

Interesting! I always thought the reason they were left out was so
that folks would buy the separates.

Not exactly. Â Drake figure that anyone who wanted to use CW *would* b
uy
the separates. Â They just didn't figure that there was a market for
transceivers among regular users of CW. Â The light finally dawned.
Of course that the meager CW features of the TR-4CW gave way to the
advanced features of the TR-5 and TR-7.

Which cost a bit more....

Sherwood has tested the Elecraft K3. Next issue of QST will carry a
Product Review of it too.

Yep. Â The numbers look very, very good. Â These days though, the
difference between very good and very, very good is just a smidgen.

Point is, you can get a very very good rig, American made, with direct
connection to the makers of the rig, for less than a lot of mid-range
rigs from Japan.

'Course not. But they weren't the target market, either. The SB-101/
HW-101 crowd were.

Uh-huh. Â It marked the end game for Heath. Â The company just did
n't
realize it right away.

Part of what changed too was the economy of kitbuilding. In the days
of point-to-point wiring, a lot of the cost of manufactured
electronics was the assembly labor. Kits eliminated that, but added
the cost of the assembly manual and the inevitable problems of
supporting the kitbuilders. Automated and semiautomated PCB-based
manufacturing drastically reduced the assembly-labor cost.

Another factor was alignment cost. Heath had to design their rigs so
they could be aligned with minimal test gear. That's one reason for
the preassembled LMO in the SB line and the preadjusted, sealed BPFs
in them. That limit on design flexibility doesn't exist for a
manufacturer who can spread the cost of test equipment over many
units.

I remember that towards the end of its run the HW-101 price reached
$449, which was almost double its introductory price less than a
decade earlier. That was without power supply, speaker, mike or sharp
filter. And you had to build it. FT-101/TS-520S took that market!

Right. Â Don't forget that the JA rigs not only had an inboard,
multi-voltage AC power supply; they included a DC supply for mobile use
as well.

Sort of. The TS-520S required the optional bolt-on DC-5 DC supply
adapter for DC operation of the transmitter section. It consisted
mostly of power transistors and a heat sink. It would not operate the
'520 at full power; you were limited to about half power. In the
TS-520SE, the last version, the DC option was eliminated and the rig
became AC-mains only.

 Neither of the two rigs mentioned actually came with a CW
filter. Â Those were optional accessories.

Yup - but not an expensive one.

I just look in the Southgate inventory.

I can do that with many items. Â There are some modern things which I
just have to buy.

The first way will be the renovators, who make a few good rigs from a
pile of problem sets. This is already starting to happen; look on ebay

for "TS-940" and you will see lots of parts for sale.

Okay. � Gone are the days when you reach into bins of transisto
r or IC
's
and expect to be able to repair much of anything. � Large scale

integrations and specialty chips took care of most of that.
Kenwood rigs in particular seem to suffer. � The 930's, 850's a
nd 940'
s
are examples of rigs where the displays and display drivers aren't
available any longer.

Agreed but there will be some rigs that have other problems but good
displays.

Oh yes, but those fluorescent displays, unlike the typical LED displays,
go bad with time and use.

I have enough #47 pilot lights for the foreseeable future...

I knew a guy who once had machinists make him a part for a Cadillac
power seat instead of paying what he considered to be an outrageous
price for the part from GM. Â I think he spent about four times what G
M
wanted.

bwaahaahaa

And consider: $125 for a reduction tuning knob for a receiver that
went out of production more than 45 years ago?

But those receivers are apt to be around for another few decades and are
highly prized. Â As I recall, there's still an outfit making highly
stable digital remote VFOs for the Collins KWM-2 series.

You can get almost anything you need for an S-line or the R-390/A.
Including high-quality videos on how to do the work.

There are folks still building HBRs today, from scratch.
I'd think that getting some of the parts could be really difficult.

You'd be surprised what folks have squirreled away....

Nooooooo, I don't think I would. Â W9ZR asked in the boatanchors
newsgroup if anyone had the bowl insulator from an ART-13. Â I sent hi
m one.

I bet it wasn't the only one you had.

In reality the only unobtanium parts are the coil forms and IF cans.
One trick is to use ARC-5 IFTs instead. But I prefer original
Southgate designs.

Those IF transformers are one of the things I was thinking about. Â I
have loads of large and miniature 455KC stuff, but nothing like the
higher frequency cans.

A BC-454 (tuning range 3-6 Mc.) has a 1415 kc. IF.

I'm looking at the Tokyo Hi Power 1.5 KW job, but it is expensive. Â I
f
the Starkville, Mississippi gang gets their act together, we may see an
affordable high power, solid state amp in the near future.

The K3 has put the Elecraft amps on the back burner for a while. I
suspect that will change once the slack runs in.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On Mar 9, 4:10Â pm, Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 5, 3:20� pm, Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 3, 2:40�pm, Michael Coslo wrote:

Gotcha, Jug!

Marcellus? Is that you?

Complete with insignia!

Almost time to put the blue sweaters away.

There's no one who can reduce a waste stream
like West Africans. Â The
seams in Coke cans are opened after the tops
and bottoms are removed and
the cans are rolled flat. Â The become roofing material
or house siding.
Black trash bags are washed and recycled. Â Pop bottles
become water
bottles and used 55-gallon drums (previous contents
unknown) are used
for making palm or cashew wine.

Except for the reuse of possibly-contaminated 55-gal drums it all
sounds good.

The dial drum of the Southgate Type 7 was made from a piece of 6"
diameter plexiglass pipe. It was thoroughly cleaned and about a 2"
long section cut off. A disk 6" in diameter was then cut and the pipe
solvent-welded to the disk using Duco.

The neutralizing-adjustment disk from a BC-375 tuning unit was then
bolted to the bottom so that the dial drum could be mounted on an
extension of the tuning capacitor shaft.

The dial drum is viewed through a Plexiglas window. A piece of paper
wrapped around the drum was calibrated using an LM frequency meter,
then a good copy drawn using a CAD program. The good copy was printed
on translucent Mylar and put on the drum.

A lampholder/reflector assembly is mounted inside the dial drum, with
two pilot lights so the whole thing is illuminated.

You want a Southgate type number for it?

I think that'd be appropriate.

Indeed! I will speak with Engineering Documentation about it.

The upright case has a full metal cover, space for a cooling fan and a
shelf which can hold the rectifier board and electrolytic caps. Â The
bottles aren't U.S. types, they're Phillips equivalents with graphite
plates. Â They should hold up for a long time. Â I'll use Chinese
Coleman-type lantern chimneys.

There's a good discussion over on eham about high power tubes,
gettering and other issues. Unlike receiving tubes with their shiny
flashed getters, high power tubes often use the anode or a coating as
the getter, and need to operate at high temperature to work.

Lots of good info out there free for the download. W5JGV's site has
info from Eimac, RCA, Taylor and other tube makers. Not just the usual
number and data but application notes, recommended practices, etc.

Yes, but they want you to *buy* the stuff! My adapters
were made from
scraps.

Some of us would have to buy stuff in order to have scraps.

Bwaahaahaa

 I've found
that the hobby shop stuff is not terribly expensive. Â They also have
round, square and sheet plastic stock. Â Some is clear and some is
translucent--ideal for making dial scales.

See description, above. I gotta take more pics...

Exactly. Wood prices have changed, though; today
a tabletop might be
AC plywood.
Depends what's on the cull cart.

I don't have a place with a cull cart. Â I've sometimes bought
ugly-looking plywood and topped a desk with vinyl floor tile. Â If you

want to fancy one up, hardwood veneer isn't too pricey.

Don't want fancy. Want functional.

Thursday there was the remains of a packing box for some new furniture
by a dumpster near here. The box was corrugated but the base was nice
2x4 and 1x6, nailed together. Cut off the corrugated and saved the
wood.

The former belongs in a museum, the latter in a home.

Not everyone lives like us, Jim. Â Some folks have houses
large enough to
be homes *and* museums and the wherewithal to populate
the place with
both types of antiques.

Yep, you're right. Particularly around here!

 I can appreciate antiques as art but we don't
have enough room for antiques we can't put to use unless
they happen to
be art for the wall or items which can sit on a table for
the most part.

Same here. All about multiple uses.

You're a lightweight! Â My main operating position is representative
of
overkill. Â The frame is 2x4's; the legs are 4x4's and the top is a
hollow core door. Â There's a two shelf console with two angled
wings,
with enough roof under the first shelf for solid-state brick
VHF/UHF
amps, keyers, paddles, DVK and the like.

For me that frame is overkill but the hollow-core door is underkill -
not strong enough.

Did I mention the six foot rack to my right?

I've had table racks but always wanted a six or seven foot floor rack.
My old Handbook has plans for a wooden one...

I did one table with a hollow core door many years ago (it was
free)
but they are too flimsy and too expensive for TSS approval now.

They hold up well with the 2x4 frame and 2x4 bracing.

Yes but that's not the issue. You can punch right through the surface
with something sharp and heavy enough.

The shack table in the website picture was designed for Field
Day use,
25 years ago. The top was the maximum size that would fit in
the back
of a VW Rabbit with the rear seat taken out. All the legs and
braces
are bolted on in such a way that the whole thing breaks down
into one
package. Does the job for now but a replacement is in the
works.

Mine will break down too, but I don't think it'll fit in a Rabbit. :-)

Less than 10 minutes to set up or take down, no tools needed. It's all
about multiple uses. No card-tables on FD for me.

73 de Jim, N2EY