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

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