Article: 100315 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Twaddle" References: <1130089302.746930.31320@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: I was way way stoopid - need to unepoxy sumpin Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:58:33 GMT Measure twice Cut once wrote in message news:1130089302.746930.31320@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >I did a very stoopid thing. > > I hollowed out a capacitor and epoxy in a new snap in capacitor inside > the old can. I didn't use the proper voltage rating capacitor and now > I have to un-epoxy. Any ideas? > > I already called myself stoopid so no need to duplicate efforts there. > > > Solvent? > > Heat? > > Dremel? > > thanks > N9NEO > > Article: 100316 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Joe" References: Subject: Re: SB-301 Manual copy Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 20:35:51 GMT Taken "Joe" wrote in message news:oAP6f.5412$U2.3824@trndny04... > SB-301 Manual copy, nice double sided in binder > > $8 shipped > > -Joe Remove NOSPAM > Article: 100317 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Keith V" References: <1130266947.945493.327440@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Homebrew 100 kHz calibrator Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 20:42:30 GMT If you Google 100kHz crystal calibrator, you will find several. Van, K0KAV wrote in message news:1130266947.945493.327440@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Hello, i am looking for a schematic for a 100kHz crystal calibrator, > nothing fancy. > Thanks > Paul > Article: 100318 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 19:11:31 -0400 From: Bill Subject: Re: Attention please Heathkit HW-16 owners References: Message-ID: Thermionic wrote: > Hi, recently I picked up a Heathkit HW-16 and with a little repair and > tune-up, its back on the air. Great!, but the receiver seems to have a > problem that may be by design or may be something wrong. So far I can't find > the cause if it's not a design flaw. What is happening is the VFO seems to > get pulled slightly by strong signals in the band, somewhat annoying. It may > be that there just needs to be a buffer between the VFO and the mixer (both > part of a 6EA8). I wonder if anyone else has seen this happen with their > HW-16? Thanks...............T > I suspect it might have something to do with power supply regulation, or rather, lack thereof. The HW-16 has a tendency to chirp when using crystals for the same reason. Using an HG-10B VFO seems to cure the chirp issue since the VFO has an onboard regulator which in turn clamps the B+ in the rig. Our friend Biz Wichy has been known to add a regulator to the basic HW-16 and that seems like a good idea. -Bill Article: 100319 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Old Guy" References: Subject: Re: Collins filters $$$$$$$$$$ Message-ID: <1130290220.c4efe347713261456df1beb6517134be@meganetnews2> Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:30:20 -0700 Cuz they're in demand and no longer made. Pretty simple, really. "Brian Hill" wrote in message news:BjT6f.17115$E17.11825@fe03.lga... > Why are they so expensive? I've put off buying some for my Collins rig > because of the price. > > > -- > > Regards > B.H. > > Brian's Basement > http://webpages.charter.net/brianhill/6.htm > > Brian's Radio Universe > http://webpages.charter.net/brianhill/500.htm > Article: 100320 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: " Uncle Peter" References: <1130290220.c4efe347713261456df1beb6517134be@meganetnews2> Subject: Re: Collins filters $$$$$$$$$$ Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 22:13:26 -0400 "Old Guy" wrote in message news:1130290220.c4efe347713261456df1beb6517134be@meganetnews2... > Cuz they're in demand and no longer made. Pretty simple, really. > They are still being made. Article: 100321 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: et472@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Black) Subject: Re: Collins filters $$$$$$$$$$ Date: 26 Oct 2005 02:15:20 GMT Message-ID: References: <1130290220.c4efe347713261456df1beb6517134be@meganetnews2> "Old Guy" (oldguy@hotmail.com) writes: > Cuz they're in demand and no longer made. Pretty simple, really. > There was a review of a recent line of Rockwell/Collins mechanical filters somewhere in the last years of "Communications Quarterly" so I suspect they are still being made. Collins mechanical filters were always costly. Surely some of it is because they aren't simple to manufacture. They also supply good performance. They were never a mass item, so there was nothing to drive cost down as demand went up. Note that commercially made crystal filters also carry a relatively high price tag. Michael VE2BVW > "Brian Hill" wrote in message > news:BjT6f.17115$E17.11825@fe03.lga... >> Why are they so expensive? I've put off buying some for my Collins rig >> because of the price. >> >> >> -- >> >> Regards >> B.H. >> >> Brian's Basement >> http://webpages.charter.net/brianhill/6.htm >> >> Brian's Radio Universe >> http://webpages.charter.net/brianhill/500.htm >> > > Article: 100322 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Bob Liesenfeld Subject: Need schematic please Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 22:09:01 -0500 Message-ID: <435EF34D.3D6F5EE1@visi.com> Hi gang, Ok, I admit it......when I see a pretty face I can't resist. I was high bidder on a Telefunken Concertino 101 receiver which does not work. Anyone have a schematic for this critter? Thanks! Bob WB0POQ wb0poq@visi.com Article: 100323 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:43:52 -0400 From: Bill Subject: Re: Need schematic please References: <435EF34D.3D6F5EE1@visi.com> Message-ID: <5fe92$435efb7c$4232bde6$32080@COQUI.NET> Bob Liesenfeld wrote: > Hi gang, > Ok, I admit it......when I see a pretty face I can't resist. I was > high bidder on a Telefunken Concertino 101 receiver which does not > work. Anyone have a schematic for this critter? > Thanks! > > Bob WB0POQ > wb0poq@visi.com > You're in pretty deep with that one! I can't help with the Model 101 schematic but I do have the model 201 which is similar, only a year or two later. It might help guide you around. Looking at the schematic you'll certainly NEED a guide. Email me if you think the 201 one would be of any use. -Bill Article: 100324 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: kashe@sonic.net Subject: Re: I was way way stoopid - need to unepoxy sumpin Message-ID: <1ohul1liomls007b60pmhogksplihjk7ah@4ax.com> References: <1130089302.746930.31320@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:06:46 GMT On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:58:33 GMT, "Twaddle" wrote: >Measure twice > >Cut once Measure with a micrometer, mark with chalk, cut with an axe. > > wrote in message >news:1130089302.746930.31320@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >>I did a very stoopid thing. >> >> I hollowed out a capacitor and epoxy in a new snap in capacitor inside >> the old can. I didn't use the proper voltage rating capacitor and now >> I have to un-epoxy. Any ideas? >> >> I already called myself stoopid so no need to duplicate efforts there. >> >> >> Solvent? >> >> Heat? >> >> Dremel? >> >> thanks >> N9NEO >> >> > Article: 100325 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Gregg Subject: Re: Collins filters $$$$$$$$$$ Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 05:19:40 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1130290220.c4efe347713261456df1beb6517134be@meganetnews2> Behold, Michael Black scribed on tube chassis: > Collins mechanical filters were always costly. Surely some of it > is because they aren't simple to manufacture. Heh, where's the overseas knockoffs? -- Gregg "t3h g33k" http://geek.scorpiorising.ca *Ratings are for transistors, tubes have guidelines* Article: 100326 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) Subject: Re: Homebrew 100 kHz calibrator Date: 26 Oct 2005 09:08:20 -0400 Message-ID: References: <1130266947.945493.327440@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> In article <1130266947.945493.327440@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, wrote: >Hello, i am looking for a schematic for a 100kHz crystal calibrator, >nothing fancy. The ARRL Hints and Kinks book has a nice one. Takes a 100 KHz crystal and uses a single low-grade MOSFET. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." Article: 100327 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "jwb" Subject: heathkit ps-23 schematic wanted Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 13:20:39 GMT heathkit ps-23 power supply schematic wanted thanks jack Article: 100328 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Steve Reinhardt" Subject: Drake TR-3 audio output transformer Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 08:43:09 -0400 Message-ID: My audio output transformer is fried. I'd like to fit one of the same dimensions; heck, I'd like it to be an original Drake unit. Anybody have a TR-3 they are using for parts?? Or, more practically speaking, have some unit with a 6AQ5 output they don't want anymore?? Steve AB1EN Article: 100329 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) Subject: Re: Drake TR-3 audio output transformer Date: 26 Oct 2005 09:46:10 -0400 Message-ID: References: Steve Reinhardt wrote: >My audio output transformer is fried. I'd like to fit one of the same >dimensions; heck, I'd like it to be an original Drake unit. >Anybody have a TR-3 they are using for parts?? Or, more practically >speaking, have some unit with a 6AQ5 output they don't want anymore?? Hammond makes an equivalent that ought to fit. If you absolutely want it to be original, you can rewind the old one, or send it to Peter Dahl and have them rewind it. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." Article: 100330 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:58:46 -0400 From: Bill Subject: Re: heathkit ps-23 schematic wanted References: Message-ID: jwb wrote: > heathkit ps-23 power supply schematic wanted thanks jack > > Will a HP-23 schematic do? I have one of those that I can send you. -Bill Article: 100331 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: David Stinson Subject: Re: Drake TR-3 audio output transformer References: Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 14:57:46 GMT Steve Reinhardt wrote: > My audio output transformer is fried.... Is it the same one that's in the TR-4C? I have a junker TR-4C (left in a wet storage barn). If it's the same, I'll pull it and send it to you. 73 Dave AB5S Article: 100332 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: WD=?ISO-8859-1?B?2A==?=HCO Subject: Re: Attention please Heathkit HW-16 owners Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:01:10 -0500 Message-ID: References: Hola Amigo's... Biz Wichy here ( WDØHCO ) Hi Bill and Thermo He's talking about the VFO in the RX section and to answer your question Thermo - NO - that's not normal. I have 3 HW-16's and none have ever done that. So lets fix her... First step is to switch V3 6EA8 with the Het Mixer V2 6EA8 and see if the problem goes away. There's one chance in a million the tube is the problem... if that's it then you really should be playing the lottery!!! Second step - try swapping the 6EW6 V4 IF AMP with 6EW6 V1 RF AMP and see if the problem goes away. This one stage away from VFO/MIX but it's worth tryin cause it only takes a second and well who knows... Third Step - possible cold solder joint. Give a good going over all the joints in the that part of the circuit board. Pay particular attention to wire "X" that connects L7. Make sure it's as short as can be and no other wires come near it. Make sure the copper island on the board where it lands is clean ( i.e No Rosen crap ). Fourth Step - check all the entrances and exits of the VFO circuit. In this case there is only two. Check R33 47K 1W resistor to see if its within 20% of the 47K value. Just left up one leg and check with a VOM. This little guy connects the +310 VDC bus and drops it to +95 to the plate of the triode section of the VFO 6EA6. Hook the resistor back up and check the +95 voltage with a ANALOG VOM. Tune in a strong signal and see if it dips as you rock the tuning knob. Next - lets check C56 cap which goes into the cathode of the VFO MIX. If you have a cap checker - fine and dandy - if not remove C56 and solder 2 2" 20 gauge vinyl coated wires and twist them together loosly three times. That should be near 680 Puff. Turn on the set and see if the problem went away. If not - put C56 back in place. At this point - we can conclude that VFO might not be the problem. A likely suspect could be the BFO Circuit - V5B which uses a 12AX7. since the '16 only has one 12AX7 you can't sub unless you have a spare 12AX7 - then try it. The fixed freq BFO is directly mixed with the IF sig at T3. R51, C72 and C77 could be troublemakers. The best way to check it is with a FREQ Counter. If you don't have one - use a good shortwave rcvr. Attach a wire antenna and bring it near T3 and tune it to the BFO freq on 3396.4 KC. Turn on the Shortwave Rcvr's BFO and get a good whistle. Now tune the HW-16 to a strong station and see if the HW-16's BFO shifts around. Well that should be a good start. Please post what your results were. Biz WDØHCO > Thermionic wrote: > >> Hi, recently I picked up a Heathkit HW-16 and with a little repair and >> tune-up, its back on the air. Great!, but the receiver seems to have a >> problem that may be by design or may be something wrong. So far I can't find >> the cause if it's not a design flaw. What is happening is the VFO seems to >> get pulled slightly by strong signals in the band, somewhat annoying. It may >> be that there just needs to be a buffer between the VFO and the mixer (both >> part of a 6EA8). I wonder if anyone else has seen this happen with their >> HW-16? Thanks...............T >> > > I suspect it might have something to do with power supply regulation, or > rather, lack thereof. The HW-16 has a tendency to chirp when using > crystals for the same reason. Using an HG-10B VFO seems to cure the > chirp issue since the VFO has an onboard regulator which in turn clamps > the B+ in the rig. > Our friend Biz Wichy has been known to add a regulator to the basic > HW-16 and that seems like a good idea. > > -Bill Article: 100333 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors Message-ID: <435F9A91.47C91B16@earthlink.net> From: "Michael A. Terrell" Subject: Re: Collins filters $$$$$$$$$$ References: <1130290220.c4efe347713261456df1beb6517134be@meganetnews2> Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 15:01:23 GMT Gregg wrote: > > Behold, Michael Black scribed on tube chassis: > > > Collins mechanical filters were always costly. Surely some of it > > is because they aren't simple to manufacture. > > Heh, where's the overseas knockoffs? > > -- > Gregg "t3h g33k" > http://geek.scorpiorising.ca > *Ratings are for transistors, tubes have guidelines* Lafayette Radio used to sell them, but they are long gone. There wasn't enough of a market for the knock offs, either. -- ? Michael A. Terrell Central Florida Article: 100334 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: David Stinson Subject: Re: Attention please Heathkit HW-16 owners References: Message-ID: <22N7f.1749$Rl1.557@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 15:13:02 GMT WDØHCO wrote: > Hola Amigo's... > > Biz Wichy here ( WDØHCO ) I don't know about ya'll, but I'm printing that one for futher referance. Thanks, Biz. Article: 100335 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Steve Reinhardt" Subject: Re: Drake TR-3 audio output transformer Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 11:00:24 -0400 Message-ID: References: "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message news:djo1b2$2aa$1@panix2.panix.com... > Steve Reinhardt wrote: > >My audio output transformer is fried. I'd like to fit one of the same > >dimensions; heck, I'd like it to be an original Drake unit. > >Anybody have a TR-3 they are using for parts?? Or, more practically > >speaking, have some unit with a 6AQ5 output they don't want anymore?? > > Hammond makes an equivalent that ought to fit. > > If you absolutely want it to be original, you can rewind the old one, or > send it to Peter Dahl and have them rewind it. > --scott > > > -- > "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." I was thinking of rewinding it. It's been quite a while since I've done that, and the core was much bigger (old color TV set power transformer rewond to power my ARC-5) but I might give it a whirl... Steve AB1EN Article: 100336 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors Message-ID: <435FAFC9.1AAA022F@earthlink.net> From: "Michael A. Terrell" Subject: Re: Homebrew 100 kHz calibrator References: <1130266947.945493.327440@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:31:55 GMT Scott Dorsey wrote: > > In article <1130266947.945493.327440@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > wrote: > >Hello, i am looking for a schematic for a 100kHz crystal calibrator, > >nothing fancy. > > The ARRL Hints and Kinks book has a nice one. Takes a 100 KHz crystal > and uses a single low-grade MOSFET. > --scott > -- > "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." You can use a 1 Mhz crystal and a divide by ten. A lot easier to find, and a lot less expensive. -- ? Michael A. Terrell Central Florida Article: 100337 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "jwb" References: <435F9C6F.14EDF7D9@earthlink.net> Subject: Re: heathkit ps-23 schematic wanted Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:30:22 GMT thanks everyone i have one!! "Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message news:435F9C6F.14EDF7D9@earthlink.net... > jwb wrote: >> >> heathkit ps-23 power supply schematic wanted thanks jack > > E-mailed. > > -- > ? > > Michael A. Terrell > Central Florida Article: 100338 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "jwb" Subject: wanted heathkit hw-101 manual and schematic Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:49:05 GMT looking for a heathkit hw-101 assembly manual and schematic,copy or pdf thanks jack Article: 100339 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Antonio Vernucci" References: Subject: Re: wanted heathkit hw-101 manual and schematic Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:02:47 +0200 Message-ID: <435fc4c8$0$29550$4fafbaef@reader1.news.tin.it> "jwb" ha scritto nel messaggio = news:lkP7f.516423$xm3.45526@attbi_s21... > looking for a heathkit hw-101 assembly manual and schematic,copy or = pdf > thanks jack=20 I downloaded it from http://bama.edebris.com/manuals/heath/hw101/ but = .... the schematic diagram quality is poor. Components values can be = read but with difficulty. Hard to understand why volunteers do not generally pay enough care to = reproduction quality. Look at how bad that DJVU- compressed diagram has = come out. Best results are obtained with GIF and PNG. JPG is unsuitable for = schematic diagrams. 73 Tony I0JX Article: 100340 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 14:31:19 -0400 From: Bill Subject: Re: wanted heathkit hw-101 manual and schematic References: Message-ID: <1f570$435fcb7b$4232bd33$28761@COQUI.NET> Don Bowey wrote: > > The hw-101 files are available in the djvu format at > > http://bama.edebris.com/manuals/heath/hw101/ > > I grabbed them and tried to convert them to PDF, but couldn't do it.... Yet. > There's lots of freeware out nowadays that will let you convert *anything* to pdf (and vice versa) by setting up the program to behave as a printer. You hit print and select the program instead of your normal printer and bingo, you have pdf. In the case mentioned there's no point in doing that since the scanned resolution is bad it will remain bad in any other format. -Bill Article: 100341 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: " Uncle Peter" References: <1130290220.c4efe347713261456df1beb6517134be@meganetnews2> <435F9A91.47C91B16@earthlink.net> Subject: Re: Collins filters $$$$$$$$$$ Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 15:43:32 -0400 "Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message news:435F9A91.47C91B16@earthlink.net... > Gregg wrote: > > > > Lafayette Radio used to sell them, but they are long gone. There > wasn't enough of a market for the knock offs, either. > > -- > ? > > Michael A. Terrell > Central Florida Collins got on them regarding patent infringement issues. Pete Article: 100342 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Antonio Vernucci" References: <1f570$435fcb7b$4232bd33$28761@COQUI.NET> Subject: Re: wanted heathkit hw-101 manual and schematic Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 22:28:14 +0200 Message-ID: <435fe6df$0$29557$4fafbaef@reader1.news.tin.it> > There are times when a poor quality schematic is better than none at = all. >=20 > The hw-101 files are not unusable. Very true. But why doing things worse when they can be easily done = better.=20 73 Tony, I0JX Article: 100343 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: et472@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Black) Subject: Re: Collins filters $$$$$$$$$$ Date: 26 Oct 2005 20:28:58 GMT Message-ID: References: <1130290220.c4efe347713261456df1beb6517134be@meganetnews2> Gregg (nospam@unknown.org) writes: > Behold, Michael Black scribed on tube chassis: > > >> Collins mechanical filters were always costly. Surely some of it >> is because they aren't simple to manufacture. > > Heh, where's the overseas knockoffs? > Well there were other manufacturers who made mechanical filters in the sixties. You'd see them in the Lafayette catalog, and mentioned in reviews (though I've always wondered if some of those reviews got it wrong, and they weren't mechanical filters). But they were never commmon. They were cheaper than Collins filters, but I have no idea how absolutely cheap they were for the time. I don't recall coming across real specs in the old magazines, either. I also recall in recent years that it was those other filters that used foam rubber inside, and by now much of that has deteriorated. Michael VE2BVW Article: 100344 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: et472@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Black) Subject: Re: Collins filters $$$$$$$$$$ Date: 26 Oct 2005 20:33:37 GMT Message-ID: References: <1130290220.c4efe347713261456df1beb6517134be@meganetnews2> <435F9A91.47C91B16@earthlink.net> "Michael A. Terrell" (mike.terrell@earthlink.net) writes: > Gregg wrote: >> >> Behold, Michael Black scribed on tube chassis: >> >> > Collins mechanical filters were always costly. Surely some of it >> > is because they aren't simple to manufacture. >> >> Heh, where's the overseas knockoffs? >> >> -- >> Gregg "t3h g33k" >> http://geek.scorpiorising.ca >> *Ratings are for transistors, tubes have guidelines* > > > Lafayette Radio used to sell them, but they are long gone. There > wasn't enough of a market for the knock offs, either. > And of course, for a lot of things ceramic filters filled the need for a filter better than a string of IF transformers (or a single crystal in a phasing arrangement), but at low cost. You see them in most cheap am/fm radios now, where their size and cost is likely why they are used, through shortwave receivers costing hundreds of dollars, to even ham transceivers (though in that instance they tend to be used in conjunction with some sort of better filter). And the ceramic filters do cover a lot of territory, going from those three terminal ones we see in the average am/fm radio, to multiple pole filters seen in those more expensive bits of equipment. Michael VE2BVW Article: 100345 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: et472@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Black) Subject: Re: Homebrew 100 kHz calibrator Date: 26 Oct 2005 20:37:42 GMT Message-ID: References: <1130266947.945493.327440@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <435FAFC9.1AAA022F@earthlink.net> "Michael A. Terrell" (mike.terrell@earthlink.net) writes: > Scott Dorsey wrote: >> >> In article <1130266947.945493.327440@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, >> wrote: >> >Hello, i am looking for a schematic for a 100kHz crystal calibrator, >> >nothing fancy. >> >> The ARRL Hints and Kinks book has a nice one. Takes a 100 KHz crystal >> and uses a single low-grade MOSFET. >> --scott >> -- >> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." > > > You can use a 1 Mhz crystal and a divide by ten. A lot easier to > find, and a lot less expensive. > Plus, it gives you markers every 1MHz, which can be useful. Yes, after logic ICs became available in the late sixties, the trend was towards a crystal higher than 100KHz. It doesn't even have to be 1MHz, 10 or 4 or any exact multiple of 1MHz will do, since it takes really no more circuitry or cost to divide by 4 or 10, or whatever first. And once the divider chain is in place, one can have other output frequencies, like 50KHz or 25KHz for those bands that don't end on 100KHz multiple. Michael VE2BVW Article: 100346 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: et472@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Black) Subject: Re: Collins filters $$$$$$$$$$ Date: 26 Oct 2005 20:40:29 GMT Message-ID: References: <1130290220.c4efe347713261456df1beb6517134be@meganetnews2> <435F9A91.47C91B16@earthlink.net> " Uncle Peter" (radioconnectionNO@cox.netSPAM) writes: > "Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message > news:435F9A91.47C91B16@earthlink.net... >> Gregg wrote: >> > > >> Lafayette Radio used to sell them, but they are long gone. There >> wasn't enough of a market for the knock offs, either. > > Collins got on them regarding patent infringement issues. > > Pete I'd never given thought to that. Was it the concept of mechanical filters that Collins had patented, or just a specific implementation? SOmeone once wrote a receiver construction article, I think it was in CQ, in the early sixties, that described how to make your own mechanical filter. Despite the number of times I've mentioned that in the newsgroups, I've yet to dig out the article. Michael VE2BVW Article: 100347 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: " Uncle Peter" References: <1130290220.c4efe347713261456df1beb6517134be@meganetnews2> Subject: Re: Collins filters $$$$$$$$$$ Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:59:32 -0400 "Michael Black" wrote in message news:djooua$abl$1@theodyn.ncf.ca... > > > Well there were other manufacturers who made mechanical filters in > the sixties. You'd see them in the Lafayette catalog, and mentioned > in reviews (though I've always wondered if some of those reviews got > it wrong, and they weren't mechanical filters). But they were never > commmon. They were cheaper than Collins filters, but I have no idea how > absolutely cheap they were for the time. I don't recall coming across > real specs in the old magazines, either. I also recall in recent years > that it was those other filters that used foam rubber inside, and by > now much of that has deteriorated. > > Michael VE2BVW > I had that happen with the filters in my NRD-515 JRC receiver. Fortunately, it wasn't too difficult to open the filters up, which allowed me to dissolve the old foam rubber blanket that cushioned the mechanical filter elements. The foam had to decayed to a chewing gum consistency and the filter losses skyrocked. These were late 70s or early 80s vintage IIRC. Regarding the patent issues, I don't recall the particulars. Pete k1zjh Article: 100348 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: gsm@mendelson.com (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) Subject: Re: wanted heathkit hw-101 manual and schematic Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:26:01 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <1f570$435fcb7b$4232bd33$28761@COQUI.NET> <435fe6df$0$29557$4fafbaef@reader1.news.tin.it> In article <435fe6df$0$29557$4fafbaef@reader1.news.tin.it>, Antonio Vernucci wrote: > Very true. But why doing things worse when they can be easily done better. The technology to produce high quality scans has been around for almost 15 years. in early 1992, I produced for a client a CD ROM with a hypertext database of article abstracts about their product and it included 300 dpi scanned images of the articles. To put it in context, I had to write a display and print program that ran under DOS!!! because most people did not have Windows. In fact we only made 500 of them because there were so few people with CD-ROM drives. :-) My CD-ROM drive cost me over $700, about half of a 386 computer without one. Now that everyone has a computer with a bitmaped display and many people have scanners, you would think that there would be no problem getting a good high resoultion scan of the manual. However, most hams are computer users and not computer experts. They scan images with whatever program that came with the scanner and use whatever settings it defaults to. Unfortunately that's usually 200 DPI and 75% quality JPEGS. Fine for scanning a copy of your photos for a web page, or if you go directly to an inkjet printer or fax machine, but not an archive copy of a drawing printed with a printing press. File size grows geometricaly with the number of pixels you scan, a letter size page at 300 dpi is 1,000,000 pixels. Lucklily the standard for fax machines, uses a special compression method that works well for black and white images and you can use it to compress a page of text to about 50k. Line drawings tend not to be much more as it is designed to work best with linear objects. JPEG is not, it's designed to work with clumps of pixels that look alike, and many colors. It is designed to make the copy look like the original to the human eye, not be lossless compression. So the bottom line is if you have any material in your library that you would want the next generation to see, scan it in at at least 300dpi and save it as "G3" encoded TIFF files. If you have anything that you think people would want, but can't do it yourself, ask around, there may be a local ham that could and would do it for you. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 You should have boycotted Google while you could, now Google supported BPL is in action. Time is running out on worldwide radio communication. Article: 100349 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:32:59 -0400 From: Bill Subject: Re: Collins filters $$$$$$$$$$ References: <1130290220.c4efe347713261456df1beb6517134be@meganetnews2> Message-ID: Uncle Peter wrote: > > I had that happen with the filters in my NRD-515 JRC receiver. > Fortunately, it wasn't too difficult to open the filters up, which > allowed me to dissolve the old foam rubber > blanket that cushioned the mechanical filter elements. The > foam had to decayed to a chewing gum consistency and the > filter losses skyrocked. These were late 70s or early 80s > vintage IIRC. Regarding the patent issues, I don't recall > the particulars. > > Pete k1zjh Does the name Kokusai ring a bell? I used one in a hoimebrew set in the mid-70s and it was a really good filter. But alas, I recall hearing later that this was one of the brands that had the foam problem. -Bill Article: 100350 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: " Uncle Peter" References: <1130290220.c4efe347713261456df1beb6517134be@meganetnews2> Subject: Re: Collins filters $$$$$$$$$$ Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:49:44 -0400 "Bill" wrote in message news:c1b74$4360122d$4232bd33$6891@COQUI.NET... > Uncle Peter wrote: > > > > > I had that happen with the filters in my NRD-515 JRC receiver. > > Fortunately, it wasn't too difficult to open the filters up, which > > allowed me to dissolve the old foam rubber > > blanket that cushioned the mechanical filter elements. The > > foam had to decayed to a chewing gum consistency and the > > filter losses skyrocked. These were late 70s or early 80s > > vintage IIRC. Regarding the patent issues, I don't recall > > the particulars. > > > > Pete k1zjh > > Does the name Kokusai ring a bell? I used one in a hoimebrew set in the > mid-70s and it was a really good filter. But alas, I recall hearing > later that this was one of the brands that had the foam problem. > > -Bill I'm hearing more ringing than might be attributed to my tinnitus affliction..... Article: 100351 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:15:55 -0400 From: Bill Subject: WTB: National SW-3 type coil socket Message-ID: I don't have the original p/n handy but this is the oddball six-pinner. TIA, Bill Article: 100352 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Edward Knobloch Subject: Re: Collins filters $$$$$$$$$$ References: <1130290220.c4efe347713261456df1beb6517134be@meganetnews2> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 01:45:18 GMT Hi, The "DX Engineering" rf speech clipper models made for both the Collins 32S-3 and for the KWM-2 used a Kokusai mechanical filter following the clipper stage. You'd remove a tube >from the IF strip of the Collins transmitter, plug the DX Engineering device into the tube socket, and plug the tube into the DX engineering device: and Bingo, you have a speech clipper available. There was a toggle switch included for in/out control. Your effective clipping level was determined by the transmitter's original audio gain control. They sounded pretty good on the air, compared to many "processors" of the time. The British KW company used a Kokusai filter (model MF-455-10AZ) in their KW2000 SSB transceiver, which was pretty highly regarded. A Kokusai filter assembly (including two matching transformers) cost around $20 in the Lafayette catalog. A Collins filter cost about twice that in the early 1960's. I saw a Popular Electronics article, about adding a mechanical filter by replacing an existing IF transformer in a receiver. In the article, he used a resistive load in the plate circuit of the previous stage, and capacitor-coupled to and from the two Lafayette matching transformers. I guess he didn't trust the transformer voltage rating. I recall a Japanese web site had pictures showing the disassembly and cleaning of a Kokusai filter. I believe he used acetone to clean off the gunk that had once been the foam plastic shock absorber surrounding the mechanical filter disks. 73, Ed Knobloch > > > Does the name Kokusai ring a bell? I used one in a hoimebrew set in the > mid-70s and it was a really good filter. But alas, I recall hearing > later that this was one of the brands that had the foam problem. > > -Bill Article: 100353 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Dan Hinich" Subject: WTB: R-390A (IF) "Utah Cover" Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 04:57:28 GMT Please let me know. Thanks...Dan. Article: 100354 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "David J Windisch" Subject: FS: working Drake TR3, AC3, RV3 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 09:26:52 GMT FS: working Drake TR3, AC3, RV3 $200 + ship from Cincinnati 45251. 73, Dave, N3HE Article: 100355 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Antonio Vernucci" References: <435fc4c8$0$29550$4fafbaef@reader1.news.tin.it> <1130379274.318577.119720@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: wanted heathkit hw-101 manual and schematic Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 19:12:34 +0200 Message-ID: <43610a83$0$13348$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it> > Did you download just the manual file or did you also download the > "improved schematic" djvu file? It is realy better than the schematics > in the manual page. I downloaded both the manual and the improved schematic. The manual is = OK but in the schematic diagram many values cannot be read, so it is = difficult to trace the components on the boards. > When uploading scanned manuals if you have a dial up line sending = scans > takes a long time so trading of scanned resolution for upload time is > something that also enters into the equation. True. However DSL is getting common and common. So it could be wise to = upload two versions of the same diagram, one high resolution and one = low. 73 Tony I0JX Article: 100356 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Antonio Vernucci" Subject: Help on coaxial toggle switch Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 19:15:41 +0200 Message-ID: <43610b3e$0$13357$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it> I got no answer to my question on the UK ham newsgroup, so I try here. Many years ago Lee Electronics (London, 400 Edgware Rd,) used to sell = small coaxial switches labelled "Coaxial toggle switch". They consisted = of a small nickel-plated brass cube bearing, on four of its faces, three = UHF-type connectors and one small lever. Those were UK-made items. Since Lee Electronics closed down, I never saw those switches on sale = anywhere. They are noy easy to search on Google. Does anyone know where to find them? Thanks in advance & 73. Tony I0JX Article: 100357 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Antonio Vernucci" References: <1130266947.945493.327440@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Homebrew 100 kHz calibrator Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 21:17:12 +0200 Message-ID: <436127b9$0$20488$4fafbaef@reader4.news.tin.it> ha scritto nel messaggio = news:1130266947.945493.327440@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Hello, i am looking for a schematic for a 100kHz crystal calibrator, > nothing fancy. > Thanks > Paul Should you instead want to buy a brand new one, still sealed, look at = E-bay item 5823786147. It is a spare part of the Yaesu FR-DX400 receiver = (1967) Presently at about 30$ 73 Tony, I0JX Article: 100358 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Antonio Vernucci" References: <43610b3e$0$13357$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it> Subject: Re: Help on coaxial toggle switch Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 22:21:58 +0200 Message-ID: <436136e7$0$29543$4fafbaef@reader1.news.tin.it> > Just in case you don't find what you are looking for: Dow-key makes = nice > coaxial antenna relays, and many of them have an additional set of = contacts > that can be used for muting. I see eBay has bunch, many of which are = new. >=20 > Don Thanks, but I have plenty of relays, Amphenol-FXR, Dambury-Knudsen, = Thotsu, Transco, Radiall, Dow-Key, etc. etc. The nice thing of the = toggle switch is that its male UHF connector can be directly screwed = onto the transceiver UHF connector, and moving the small lever you can = select two antennas. Very small and handy. I have two of those toggle switches, bought around 1980, but I would = like to buy more now. Noone seems to sell them! 73 Tony I0JX Article: 100359 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "MTM" Subject: FS: Hammerlund HQ 129 X & Heathkit DX-60 Message-ID: <31e8f.15553$tl5.9759@trnddc02> Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 00:11:43 GMT FS: Hammerlund HQ 129 X & Heathkit DX-60.... Please let me know if interested...Pix available.... Before eBay deals ....Please call -- Thanks........Mike.......... 814-450-7979-c res0i8ad@verizon.net FS: Hammerlund HQ 129 X & Heathkit DX-60 Article: 100360 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "MTM" Subject: FS: Hammarlund HQ 129-X & Heathkit DX-60 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 00:15:21 GMT FS: Hammarlund HQ 129-X & Heathkit DX-60 Please call ASAP...If Interested... Pix available.... B4...eBay deals available...! Call ASAP..... -- Thanks........Mike.......... 814-450-7979-c res0i8ad@verizon.net Article: 100361 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 21:00:13 -0400 From: Bill Subject: WTB: Milsurp FT-241 xtals Message-ID: I'm looking for a pair of ~455kc adjacent 'channel' xtals for a rcvr project. I gather that the series of FT-241s that had channel numbers like 326 and a freq up in the Lo-VHF (20-30 Mc) range...or those with ch. numbers in the 10s-70s that are marked in the similar VHF range are what I'm looking for. Not the FT-243s from ch 270-389. I know the ones close to 455kc fundamental are the $ primos and I would have no problem with something else anywhere from 400-500 since this is a homebrew set and being spot on at 455 is not an issue. A pair of adjacent ones would be great...or a adjacent single to match my 'in stock' ch 46/24.6 Mc or ch. 18/21.8 Mc. TIA, Bill Article: 100362 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "k6zsr" Subject: FA: NICE S-76 RECEIVER NO RESERVE! Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 18:49:31 -0700 See it at : http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=5822218722&ssPageName=STRK:MESE:IT Article: 100363 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Dan Hinich" References: Subject: Re: R-390A (IF) "Utah Cover" Message-ID: Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 05:04:28 GMT FOUND, Thanks. "Dan Hinich" wrote in message news:Y6Z7f.18725$1A1.6257@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com... > Please let me know. > Thanks...Dan. > Article: 100365 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Earl Needham" Subject: MasterMobile Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 18:53:57 -0600 Message-ID: <11m5i14dcsj8v17@corp.supernews.com> Looking for one MasterMobile 20-meter coil and one MasterMobile 75-meter coil. Thanks, Earl -- Earl Needham Clovis, New Mexico USA Article: 100366 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Jim, KK1W" Subject: HCRA Auction - Feeding Hills, MA, November 4th Message-ID: Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 10:55:09 -0400 HCRA is asking all auction attendees to help the ARRL and the Salvation Army with their Toy Drive for 2005. If you're able, please bring an unwrapped toy with you to the auction. We will gather them together and bring them to the ARRL for distribution to displaced children from the Gulf hurricanes. Thanks in advance and don't forget to attach your QSL card to your donation. Now on to the auction... The annual HCRA auction returns again with our usual fun and bargain extravganza! Come to Feeding Hills, MA on Friday, November 4th and enjoy a great amateur radio auction. This yearly event draws over 100 people from at least three states. It's a great place to sell your old stuff or go home with a bargain. Win a Yaesu VX-7R in the raffle too! Only a week away - have you got your stuff ready?? The particulars: Date: November 4th, 2005 Time: Set-up at 6:30 PM, auction starts at 7:00 PM Place: Feeding Hills Congregational Church 23 North Westfield Street Feeding Hills, MA 01030 Admission: Free!!!! Here's a link to a Google interactive map: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=21+North+Westfield+Street,+Feeding+Hills,+MA&spn=0.043945,0.079338&hl=en The simple rules: Sellers: Mark your item with your name, call (if you have one) and a minimum selling price (if you so desire). 10% of the sale goes to HCRA (maximum is $10). Amateur radio or computer items only. Please box small items into lots for quick auctioning. If it doesn't sell you bring it home. Buyers: Bid, buy and go home with a bargain! The tradition of a great raffle prize continues. Purchase a raffle ticket to win a Yaesu VX-7R Handy Talkie. Also second and third prizes of an ARRL Antenna Book and a 25A power supply. Coffee, donuts and softdrinks will be available. Everyone is welcome, bring a friend or two along for the fun. For further information please drop me an email or call. All contact details are on our web site at: http://www.hcra.org. '73... Jim, KK1W Article: 100367 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Bill Kirkland Subject: Re: Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground References: Message-ID: Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 11:13:46 -0400 Beg to differ. When I received an SP600 and cabinet from the US, FedEx had dropped it hard enough to break the mounting screws for the radio. It popped out of the cabinet and did the shake, rattle roll bit. They refused to pay. Initially saying inadequate packaging even though the person saying this had only seen the inspection report which was not accurately filled out. The story goes on and on. Finally I filed with small claims court and in about a week I got a call from their lawyer wanting to settle. When FedEx works, it works well. Pay attention to the "small print" which you have to go find somewhere in their website. They do NOT offer insurance on Ground. They do offer the opportunity to increase their liability coverage for a fee, i.e. how much you can hold them accountable for. This is the "extra" you are paying for and is required by US law. Otherwise they are limited to $100 liability. Note that when you do find the relevant document (which doesn't show up at all when you fill out the online paper work), they exclude "antiques". Never, ever tell them you shipped a vintage radio. bk > Agreed. > > Let me also say that, from my experience, UPS and FedEx Ground break things > at about the same rate. But when FedEx damages something, they promptly > inspect it and pay out without a fuss, while UPS will do almost anything to > avoid paying insurance claims. Admittedly I have had only three UPS issues, > but all were nightmares. > --scott > Article: 100368 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Bill Kirkland Subject: WTD: Slugs used SX-28A RF coils + other RF parts Message-ID: Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 11:17:33 -0400 Title says it all. The slugs in my RF coils look like molten drops of lead and are useless for tuning anymore. Also looking for one or two of the trimmer caps used in the RF box. Note: This is for a 28A the 28 is quite a bit different. Bill, VE3JHU Article: 100369 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Mr Fed UP" References: Subject: Re: Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground EEOO other weasel words etc,.., Message-ID: Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 11:34:42 -0500 Other weasel words I have seen on many company names these days. Are LLC instead of INC or CO .... I found it to be the acronym for Limited Liability Company. Anyone know what this means for them to weasel out of being liable? Seems like most companies are going to similar labels. I don't want to be liable for nothing either, but Sheezzzz!!! Do we all expect to get shafted from every place we do business now? Any enlightenment appreciated. Any lawyers out there? Can they really do business and not be responsible for the services and products they sell? Maybe not exactly on target for boatanchors, but applicable to all of us these days me thinks. "Bill Kirkland" wrote in message news:jkM8f.8430$ki7.699425@news20.bellglobal.com... > Beg to differ. When I received an SP600 and cabinet from the US, > FedEx had dropped it hard enough to break the mounting screws > for the radio. It popped out of the cabinet and did the shake, > rattle roll bit. They refused to pay. Initially saying inadequate > packaging even though the person saying this had only seen the > inspection report which was not accurately filled out. The > story goes on and on. Finally I filed with small claims court and > in about a week I got a call from their lawyer wanting to settle. > > When FedEx works, it works well. > > Pay attention to the "small print" which you have to go find > somewhere in their website. They do NOT offer insurance on Ground. > They do offer the opportunity to increase their liability coverage for > a fee, i.e. how much you can hold them accountable for. This is > the "extra" you are paying for and is required by US law. Otherwise > they are limited to $100 liability. > > Note that when you do find the relevant document (which doesn't > show up at all when you fill out the online paper work), they > exclude "antiques". Never, ever tell them you shipped a vintage radio. > > bk >> Agreed. >> >> Let me also say that, from my experience, UPS and FedEx Ground break >> things >> at about the same rate. But when FedEx damages something, they promptly >> inspect it and pay out without a fuss, while UPS will do almost anything >> to >> avoid paying insurance claims. Admittedly I have had only three UPS >> issues, >> but all were nightmares. >> --scott >> Article: 100370 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 13:54:00 -0400 From: Bill Subject: Re: Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground EEOO other weasel words References: Message-ID: Mr Fed UP wrote: > Other weasel words I have seen on many company names these days. > Are LLC instead of INC or CO .... I found it to be the acronym for > Limited Liability Company. Anyone know what this means for them > to weasel out of being liable? Seems like most companies are going > to similar labels. I don't want to be liable for nothing either, but > Sheezzzz!!! Do we all expect to get shafted from every place we > do business now? Any enlightenment appreciated. > Any lawyers out there? Can they really do business and not be > responsible for the services and products they sell? You're confusing liability for damages with liability between partners of a corporation. Same word, different context. Here's a brief explanation taken from the web. Liability Issues of a Limited Liability Company In a limited liability company, a member's legal liability is limited to his or her investment in the business. Generally, a member's personal assets are not at risk, but a member's personal assets may be at risk if any of the following occurs: * A member personally guarantees a business debt. * The form of business is found to be a sham (not properly formed or maintained). * A member becomes personally liable as a result of his or her own acts or conduct. -Bill Article: 100371 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Mr Fed UP" References: Subject: Re: Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground EEOO other weasel words etc,.., Message-ID: Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 16:09:20 -0500 Ok. I see now. But still not a comforting thing to see hang on a company title. At least for me. Looks like they are making a hedge on legal proceedings before they even do business. LOL Maybe goes along with never reaching a real person on the phone. :-) Thanks for raking some of the muck off the new business jargon. I can feel a little less exposed now. "Bill" wrote in message news:e0421$4363b73b$4232bd7d$27893@COQUI.NET... > Mr Fed UP wrote: >> Other weasel words I have seen on many company names these days. >> Are LLC instead of INC or CO .... I found it to be the acronym for >> Limited Liability Company. Anyone know what this means for them >> to weasel out of being liable? Seems like most companies are going >> to similar labels. I don't want to be liable for nothing either, but >> Sheezzzz!!! Do we all expect to get shafted from every place we >> do business now? Any enlightenment appreciated. >> Any lawyers out there? Can they really do business and not be >> responsible for the services and products they sell? > > You're confusing liability for damages with liability between partners of > a corporation. Same word, different context. > > Here's a brief explanation taken from the web. > > > Liability Issues of a Limited Liability Company > > In a limited liability company, a member's legal liability is limited to > his or her investment in the business. Generally, a member's personal > assets are not at risk, but a member's personal assets may be at risk if > any of the following occurs: > > * > A member personally guarantees a business debt. > * > The form of business is found to be a sham (not properly formed or > maintained). > * > A member becomes personally liable as a result of his or her own > acts or conduct. > > > -Bill Article: 100372 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 17:14:01 -0400 From: Bill Subject: Re: Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground EEOO other weasel words References: Message-ID: <1dab2$4363e61c$4232bdfe$7823@COQUI.NET> Mr Fed UP wrote: > Thanks for raking some of the muck off the new business jargon. > I can feel a little less exposed now. Well, I suspect your instincts may be somewhat correct regardless. Many LLCs exist because the owners want to protect themselves against each other. -Bill Article: 100373 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Theo" Subject: KW 2000B Transceiver on Ebay UK Message-ID: Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 21:47:31 GMT This is a nice looking example of this classic rig:- http://tinyurl.com/anh9m Article: 100374 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Earl Needham" Subject: Re: MasterMobile Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 21:55:06 -0600 Message-ID: <11m8h0ot9n6ca0c@corp.supernews.com> References: <11m5i14dcsj8v17@corp.supernews.com> "COLIN LAMB" wrote in message news:OXL8f.3359$yX2.209@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net... > Next you will tell us you need an Elmac AF-67 and dynamotor. > > Keep it up, good to know that people who know about this stuff are still > alive. > > Colin K7FM Actually, my plan is to get the MasterMobile together, then find a 62 or maybe a 64 Ford, and a Swan 700CX to go in it! Earl -- Earl Needham Clovis, New Mexico USA Article: 100375 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Radioal" Subject: FA: Classic Dentron MT-3000A Legal Limit Antenna Tuner Message-ID: Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 07:03:55 -0500 Last day! http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5822526361&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMESE%3AIT&rd=1 Article: 100376 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Earl Needham" Subject: Re: Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 07:11:33 -0700 Message-ID: <11m9l4pf51atk6d@corp.supernews.com> References: What I don't understand is why ANY ham would ever use UPS after what they did to the 220 MHz band a few years ago. Earl KD5XB -- Earl Needham Clovis, New Mexico USA Article: 100377 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Steve Reinhardt Subject: Improving the Drake TR-3 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 09:32:49 -0500 I just repaired my TR-3, and put it on the air. I'd forgotten what a nice rig it is. Now, I've started to think about how much better it could be. What if one was to rip out the entire frequency control section (VFO, xtal osc, mixer, etc) and replace it with a DDS synthesizer. It turns out that the display would fit in the opening of the tuning dial. There would be excellent frequency stability, no backwards tuning on 20M, 2-3 less tubes to save heat and power. It just wouldn't be a Drake anymore... And don't get me started on a lightweight switching supply to replace the AC-3. I might do that anyway, since I wouldn't be destroying any hardware. So, what do you all think? Is this a Good Idea, or a Bad Idea? Should I try to find a cruddy TR-3 and do the surgery, or am I just being silly? Your comments and critique are welcome (he says, ducking for cover.) If I should go ahead, does anyone have a TR-3 (or TR-4) that's fairly complete, but not working, they'd like to sell me as the basis of this? Call me Dr Drakenstein! Steve AB1EN Article: 100378 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) Subject: Re: Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground Date: 30 Oct 2005 10:00:23 -0500 Message-ID: References: <11m9l4pf51atk6d@corp.supernews.com> Earl Needham wrote: > > What I don't understand is why ANY ham would ever use UPS after what >they did to the 220 MHz band a few years ago. Good point. And the MOST tragic part of it is that after they took the bandwidth, they decided not to use it. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." Article: 100379 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Leanne" Subject: Re: Improving the Drake TR-3 Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 10:05:48 -0500 Message-ID: References: "Steve Reinhardt" wrote in message news:mQ49f.32633$E17.9136@fe03.lga... > So, what do you all think? Is this a Good Idea, or a Bad Idea? Depends on how much you want too do it >Should I try to find a cruddy TR-3 and do the surgery, or am I just being silly? > Your comments and critique are welcome (he says, ducking for cover.) First of all everyone needs a hobby for those cold winter nights when the band is not open. If I had the time and energy, I would look for a well used TR-3 and have at it. It would no longer be a Drake, but something that gives you the satisfaction of accomplishment when it is all together and working. Leanne W1WXS Article: 100380 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Steve Reinhardt Subject: Re: Improving the Drake TR-3 References: Message-ID: Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 10:30:00 -0500 Leanne wrote: > "Steve Reinhardt" wrote in > message news:mQ49f.32633$E17.9136@fe03.lga... > > >>So, what do you all think? > > > Is this a Good Idea, or a Bad Idea? Depends on how much you want > too do it > > >>Should I try to find a cruddy TR-3 and do the surgery, or am I > > just being silly? > >>Your comments and critique are welcome (he says, ducking for > > cover.) > > First of all everyone needs a hobby for those cold winter nights > when the band is not open. If I had the time and energy, I would > look for a well used TR-3 and have at it. It would no longer be > a Drake, but something that gives you the satisfaction of > accomplishment when it is all together and working. > > Leanne > W1WXS > > Leanne, Thanks. I'm keeping my eyes open for the right rig. I've already got an order in for the Norcal FCC-1 frequency meter. It then can bolt up to a 9850 DDS card, and provide all I need. I think. I'll certainly have extra parts for the working TR-3... Steve AB1EN Article: 100381 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Clif Holland" References: <11m9l4pf51atk6d@corp.supernews.com> Subject: Re: Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground Message-ID: Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 16:26:51 GMT "Chuck Harris" wrote in message news:hI2dnWJ5IthscvnenZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@rcn.net... > Scott Dorsey wrote: >> Earl Needham wrote: >> >>> What I don't understand is why ANY ham would ever use UPS after what >>>they did to the 220 MHz band a few years ago. >> >> >> Good point. And the MOST tragic part of it is that after they took the >> bandwidth, they decided not to use it. >> --scott >> > > Of course, UPS only asked for the bandwidth. It was the FCC > and congress that gave them what they asked for. What UPS wanted > to do was perfectly valid, and a good idea too. If there is any > blame to pass out, it rightfully belongs to the FCC and congress. > > Is there anyone who hasn't ultimately benefited from the ability > to track their packages? UPS forged the way, but all shippers > now provide the capability. It just happened that the existing > cell phone infrastructure was a more practical way of providing the > tracking service than was building an entirely new infrastructure > on 220MHz... something that, in hindsight, the FCC should have > realized. > > -Chuck The FCC is Reactive not Proactive. The latter would require thought. -- Clif Holland KA5IPF www.avvid.com Article: 100382 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Frank" References: Subject: Re: Improving the Drake TR-3 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 16:28:31 GMT Steve Reinhardt wrote in message news:mQ49f.32633$E17.9136@fe03.lga... > I just repaired my TR-3, and put it on the air. I'd forgotten what a > nice rig it is. Now, I've started to think about how much better it > could be. What if one was to rip out the entire frequency control > section (VFO, xtal osc, mixer, etc) and replace it with a DDS > synthesizer. It turns out that the display would fit in the opening of > the tuning dial. There would be excellent frequency stability, no > backwards tuning on 20M, 2-3 less tubes to save heat and power. It just > wouldn't be a Drake anymore... > > And don't get me started on a lightweight switching supply to replace > the AC-3. I might do that anyway, since I wouldn't be destroying any > hardware. ARC-5 Command Set receiver modification instructions for conversion to a single band SSB transceiver. Step 1. Remove all components except the variable capacitor... Article: 100383 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Steve Reinhardt Subject: Re: Improving the Drake TR-3 References: Message-ID: Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 11:33:25 -0500 Frank wrote: > Steve Reinhardt wrote in message > news:mQ49f.32633$E17.9136@fe03.lga... > >>I just repaired my TR-3, and put it on the air. I'd forgotten what a >>nice rig it is. Now, I've started to think about how much better it >>could be. What if one was to rip out the entire frequency control >>section (VFO, xtal osc, mixer, etc) and replace it with a DDS >>synthesizer. It turns out that the display would fit in the opening of >>the tuning dial. There would be excellent frequency stability, no >>backwards tuning on 20M, 2-3 less tubes to save heat and power. It just >>wouldn't be a Drake anymore... >> >>And don't get me started on a lightweight switching supply to replace >>the AC-3. I might do that anyway, since I wouldn't be destroying any >>hardware. > > > ARC-5 Command Set receiver modification instructions for conversion to a > single band SSB transceiver. > > Step 1. Remove all components except the variable capacitor... > > Been there, done that. Well, not SSB, but my first rig (1969) was an ARC-5 conversion. I actually got to keep quite a bit of the guts and still make a few QSOs. It was paired with a Hammarlund HQ-120X... Steve AB1EN Article: 100384 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Steve Reinhardt Subject: Re: Improving the Drake TR-3 References: Message-ID: Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 11:37:39 -0500 gb wrote: > "Steve Reinhardt" wrote in message > news:mQ49f.32633$E17.9136@fe03.lga... > >>I just repaired my TR-3, and put it on the air. I'd forgotten what a nice >>rig it is. Now, I've started to think about how much better it could be. >>What if one was to rip out the entire frequency control section (VFO, xtal >>osc, mixer, etc) and replace it with a DDS synthesizer. It turns out that >>the display would fit in the opening of the tuning dial. There would be >>excellent frequency stability, no backwards tuning on 20M, 2-3 less tubes >>to save heat and power. It just wouldn't be a Drake anymore... >> >>And don't get me started on a lightweight switching supply to replace the >>AC-3. I might do that anyway, since I wouldn't be destroying any hardware. >> >>So, what do you all think? Is this a Good Idea, or a Bad Idea? Should I >>try to find a cruddy TR-3 and do the surgery, or am I just being silly? >>Your comments and critique are welcome (he says, ducking for cover.) >> >>If I should go ahead, does anyone have a TR-3 (or TR-4) that's fairly >>complete, but not working, they'd like to sell me as the basis of this? >> >>Call me Dr Drakenstein! >> >>Steve >>AB1EN > > > Steve - > > There was a TR-3 parts rig on eBay (may still be there) that would be a > starting point for such conversions. > > IF you want DDS, then build it outboard and use with TR-3 like the old > external VFO for TR-3 was used. > > Remember a few point about these "conversions" > > Removes value (zero) of radio for anyone but you. It is rare for a "major > conversions" that you described to raise the value of a radio. > > With your time and $$ .. go build an Elecraft K-2 .... you won't be > disappointed. > > gb > > > My proposal will surely result in a worthless radio, from a resales perspective. That's why I need to start with something of little worth, and why I'm reluctant to dig into mine. It's not the prettiest, but it is working and largely original. Someone already got the mike connector; it's a standard 1/4" now. Most of the rest seems faithful to the original. Still, it would be interesting to have the 300W input, and smooth AGC of this unit with modern tuning. I'll save the truly modern stuff for my R2-PRO and T2 system. The IQ-Pro DDS is almost ready... Thanks for the pointer on ebay. I'll check it out! Steve AB1EN Article: 100385 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 12:39:33 -0400 From: Bill Subject: Re: Improving the Drake TR-3 References: Message-ID: <3d1ae$4364f748$4232bd44$17403@COQUI.NET> Steve Reinhardt wrote: > > Thanks. I'm keeping my eyes open for the right rig. I've already got > an order in for the Norcal FCC-1 frequency meter. It then can bolt up to > a 9850 DDS card, and provide all I need. I think. I'll certainly have > extra parts for the working TR-3... > > Steve > AB1EN I've seen a Drake 4-line rig somewhere with a digital readout stuck in the dial window. Don't recall if it was an xcvr, rcvr or what. You might want to google around and see if that wheel has already been invented -Bill Article: 100386 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Brian Hill" Subject: WTB- Hallicrafters 465khz xtal for SX-17 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 11:07:42 -0600 I need an original 465 KHz crystal that is used in the crystal phasing circuit for my SX-17. Thanks -- Regards B.H. Brian's Basement http://webpages.charter.net/brianhill/6.htm Brian's Radio Universe http://webpages.charter.net/brianhill/500.htm Article: 100387 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Frank" References: Subject: Re: Improving the Drake TR-3 Message-ID: <4e79f.3011$qk4.1284@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 17:16:48 GMT Steve Reinhardt wrote in message news:pB69f.32717$E17.32663@fe03.lga... > Frank wrote: > > Steve Reinhardt wrote in message > > news:mQ49f.32633$E17.9136@fe03.lga... > > > >>I just repaired my TR-3, and put it on the air. I'd forgotten what a > >>nice rig it is. Now, I've started to think about how much better it > >>could be. What if one was to rip out the entire frequency control > >>section (VFO, xtal osc, mixer, etc) and replace it with a DDS > >>synthesizer. It turns out that the display would fit in the opening of > >>the tuning dial. There would be excellent frequency stability, no > >>backwards tuning on 20M, 2-3 less tubes to save heat and power. It just > >>wouldn't be a Drake anymore... > >> > >>And don't get me started on a lightweight switching supply to replace > >>the AC-3. I might do that anyway, since I wouldn't be destroying any > >>hardware. > > > > > > ARC-5 Command Set receiver modification instructions for conversion to a > > single band SSB transceiver. > > > > Step 1. Remove all components except the variable capacitor... > > > > > Been there, done that. Well, not SSB, but my first rig (1969) was an > ARC-5 conversion. I actually got to keep quite a bit of the guts and > still make a few QSOs. It was paired with a Hammarlund HQ-120X... > > Steve > AB1EN They were fun... About twenty years ago I started a collection of ARC-5 stuff with the intentions of writing an ariticle for, perhaps, QST. I actually have a copy (in pristine condition) of a publication (first edition, first printing, April 1961) by Western Radio Amateur Magazine for conversion of a BC-453 to a complete 40 meter transceiver. It was a design by Ed Marriner, W6BLZ and Ernie Mason, W6IQY. Too bad not many Command Sets are left---few remain after all the conversions and parting out. I had a trailer full of the equipments that I eventually donated to a War Bird restoration outfit. Perhaps your TR-3 (my first real SSB rig) would be better off restored to like-new condition---there were considerably less TR-3's manufactured than Command Sets. Article: 100388 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: et472@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Black) Subject: Re: Improving the Drake TR-3 Date: 30 Oct 2005 17:57:05 GMT Message-ID: References: <4e79f.3011$qk4.1284@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> "Frank" (nospam@nospam.com) writes: > Steve Reinhardt wrote in message > news:pB69f.32717$E17.32663@fe03.lga... >> Frank wrote: >> > Steve Reinhardt wrote in message >> > news:mQ49f.32633$E17.9136@fe03.lga... >> > >> >>I just repaired my TR-3, and put it on the air. I'd forgotten what a >> >>nice rig it is. Now, I've started to think about how much better it >> >>could be. What if one was to rip out the entire frequency control >> >>section (VFO, xtal osc, mixer, etc) and replace it with a DDS >> >>synthesizer. It turns out that the display would fit in the opening of >> >>the tuning dial. There would be excellent frequency stability, no >> >>backwards tuning on 20M, 2-3 less tubes to save heat and power. It just >> >>wouldn't be a Drake anymore... >> >> >> >>And don't get me started on a lightweight switching supply to replace >> >>the AC-3. I might do that anyway, since I wouldn't be destroying any >> >>hardware. >> > >> > >> > ARC-5 Command Set receiver modification instructions for conversion to a >> > single band SSB transceiver. >> > >> > Step 1. Remove all components except the variable capacitor... >> > >> > >> Been there, done that. Well, not SSB, but my first rig (1969) was an >> ARC-5 conversion. I actually got to keep quite a bit of the guts and >> still make a few QSOs. It was paired with a Hammarlund HQ-120X... >> >> Steve >> AB1EN > > They were fun... About twenty years ago I started a collection of ARC-5 > stuff with the intentions of writing an ariticle for, perhaps, QST. I > actually have a copy (in pristine condition) of a publication (first > edition, first printing, April 1961) by Western Radio Amateur Magazine for > conversion of a BC-453 to a complete 40 meter transceiver. It was a design > by Ed Marriner, W6BLZ and Ernie Mason, W6IQY. Too bad not many Command Sets > are left---few remain after all the conversions and parting out. I had a > trailer full of the equipments that I eventually donated to a War Bird > restoration outfit. Perhaps your TR-3 (my first real SSB rig) would be > better off restored to like-new condition---there were considerably less > TR-3's manufactured than Command Sets. But once again, equipment is meant to be used, not kept in a museum. People converted all that old surplus stuff because it was cheap, plentiful, and often didn't do what they wanted. Same reason people added things to their commercial rigs; the additions made them better to the owner. It's only years later that people are grumbling, because they want pristine equipment for the sake of collections. Of course, one irony is that some of the impact of the equipment today wouldn't mean anything if there hadn't been culling from routine use over the past decades. If I could still go into a local surplus store and buy a Command Set transmitter for $9.95, as I did about 1972, then there'd be plenty of them and little interest. It's only because of the culling that they have become valuable. Look at comic books. 35 years ago, I bought them to read. I didn't buy them to collect them, I didn't buy them for the art. And when I was finished with them, I got rid of them. They are valuable now because they were used back then, and so they are now relatively rare. And of course, some of those who want them so badly are the people who made the mistake of getting rid of them decades ago. I include myself, though I don't desire them enough to pay money for them. But in recent years, comic books have become more about "collecting". Buy them, try to figure out titles that will be valuable, and keep them "mint" in plastic bags from the start. If you want to read them, then buy two copies. That will ensure there will be a big supply decades from now, but it also means there will be no appeal to them. People could have decided decades ago to buy equipment for the future, ie buy them keep them in the box and never use them. That would be the best situation for the future collector. But then the equipment would have never been used for its intended use, and not only would there be an ample suply now, but if nobody had used the stuff back then, the appeal of reliving the past would be less. Michael VE2BVW Article: 100389 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: gsm@mendelson.com (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) Subject: Re: Improving the Drake TR-3 Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 18:36:01 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: In article , Steve Reinhardt wrote: > I just repaired my TR-3, and put it on the air. I'd forgotten what a > nice rig it is. Now, I've started to think about how much better it > could be. What if one was to rip out the entire frequency control > section (VFO, xtal osc, mixer, etc) and replace it with a DDS > synthesizer. It turns out that the display would fit in the opening of > the tuning dial. There would be excellent frequency stability, no > backwards tuning on 20M, 2-3 less tubes to save heat and power. It just > wouldn't be a Drake anymore... Drake already did that. They took a TR-4CW, converted it to all solid state and repalced the PTO with a synthesizer. Called it the TR-5. Nice rig, but they only sold around 1500 of them. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 You should have boycotted Google while you could, now Google supported BPL is in action. Time is running out on worldwide radio communication. Article: 100390 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Steve Reinhardt Subject: Re: Improving the Drake TR-3 References: <4e79f.3011$qk4.1284@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 14:13:25 -0500 Frank wrote: > Steve Reinhardt wrote in message > news:pB69f.32717$E17.32663@fe03.lga... > >>Frank wrote: >> >>>Steve Reinhardt wrote in message >>>news:mQ49f.32633$E17.9136@fe03.lga... >>> >>> >>>>I just repaired my TR-3, and put it on the air. I'd forgotten what a >>>>nice rig it is. Now, I've started to think about how much better it >>>>could be. What if one was to rip out the entire frequency control >>>>section (VFO, xtal osc, mixer, etc) and replace it with a DDS >>>>synthesizer. It turns out that the display would fit in the opening of >>>>the tuning dial. There would be excellent frequency stability, no >>>>backwards tuning on 20M, 2-3 less tubes to save heat and power. It just >>>>wouldn't be a Drake anymore... >>>> >>>>And don't get me started on a lightweight switching supply to replace >>>>the AC-3. I might do that anyway, since I wouldn't be destroying any >>>>hardware. ---snip--- > Perhaps your TR-3 (my first real SSB rig) would be > better off restored to like-new condition---there were considerably less > TR-3's manufactured than Command Sets. > > > > Yeah, thus my point about getting a basket case to play with. My current TR-3 will be cleaned up so it's representative of the best 1963 had to offer. The 'new' one may fall under the doctor's knife (;-)... Steve AB1EN Article: 100391 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) Subject: Re: Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground Date: 30 Oct 2005 14:36:45 -0500 Message-ID: References: <11m9l4pf51atk6d@corp.supernews.com> Chuck Harris wrote: > >Of course, UPS only asked for the bandwidth. It was the FCC >and congress that gave them what they asked for. What UPS wanted >to do was perfectly valid, and a good idea too. If there is any >blame to pass out, it rightfully belongs to the FCC and congress. This is true. It's easier to boycott UPS than the FCC and congress, though. >Is there anyone who hasn't ultimately benefited from the ability >to track their packages? UPS forged the way, but all shippers >now provide the capability. It just happened that the existing >cell phone infrastructure was a more practical way of providing the >tracking service than was building an entirely new infrastructure >on 220MHz... something that, in hindsight, the FCC should have >realized. Also true. However, I have many more unkind things to say about the spectrum management folks at the FCC. And the enforcement guys all seem to be doing nothing other than busting FM pirates and breast-showing broadcasters, while badly-maintained cable TV networks across the country spew trash all over the VHF bands and touch lamps that blatantly violate Part 15 are available at every Wal-Mart. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." Article: 100392 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Antonio Vernucci" Subject: Unknown Drake noise blanker Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 20:55:08 +0100 Message-ID: <4365251d$0$29552$4fafbaef@reader1.news.tin.it> On e-bay there is a Drake NB-2 Noise Blanker on sale (item# 5824497511) I thoroughly searched the web for NB-2 but I found no reference to it = anywhere. Does anyone know what it is for? Tony I0JX Article: 100393 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Dino Papas Subject: Re: Unknown Drake noise blanker References: <4365251d$0$29552$4fafbaef@reader1.news.tin.it> Message-ID: Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 16:16:38 -0500 Tony - I think the person has the model number incorrect. It looks like the "2-NB" noise blanker which is an accessory for the 2-C receiver. You can see the description here: http://www.dproducts.be/Drake_museum/2-nb.htm Dino KL0S/4 Article: 100394 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: nanu Subject: FA: Collins 51S-1 Receiver in Scrap Condition Message-ID: Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 23:11:10 GMT Hello All, There is a Collins Radio 51S-1 receiver in scrap condition available on eBay right now. This chassis contains lots of useful parts for Collins enthusiasts. In case anyone is interested, it is item # 5824389211 http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5824389211&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMESE%3AIT&rd=1 Thanks. Nanu Article: 100395 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Lazy Senior Subject: Old Xmtrs, "Ancient Modulation" and Amps Message-ID: Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 01:30:11 GMT I recently acquired a Viking Ranger in nice working condx. I am interested in using this on AM on 160, 80, and 40 mtrs. The Ranger runs around 40 watts Am carrier output. I would like to get an amplifier to use with this xmtr, maybe a vintage amp. What should I be looking for? I would like to run legal Am Limit on these 3 bands. Should I forget about Vintage Amps and get a modern Amp? Suggestions please. Any pitfalls to using a modern Amp? Thanx Lazy Senior Article: 100396 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) Subject: Re: Old Xmtrs, "Ancient Modulation" and Amps Date: 30 Oct 2005 20:43:11 -0500 Message-ID: References: Lazy Senior wrote: >I recently acquired a Viking Ranger in nice working condx. > >I am interested in using this on AM on 160, 80, and 40 mtrs. The Ranger >runs around 40 watts Am carrier output. I would like to get an amplifier >to use with this xmtr, maybe a vintage amp. What should I be looking >for? I would like to run legal Am Limit on these 3 bands. Should I >forget about Vintage Amps and get a modern Amp? Suggestions please. Any >pitfalls to using a modern Amp? Put the thing on the air as it is and have some fun. You can add an amp if you want, but give it a try with 40W and see how you do. I bet you'll be surprised. There are plenty of decent used linear amps out there if you want to go that route, but if you think about it in dB, 1000W isn't _that_ much more than 10W. Only a few S-units at the receiver. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." Article: 100397 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: " Uncle Peter" References: Subject: Re: Old Xmtrs, "Ancient Modulation" and Amps Message-ID: Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 21:06:59 -0500 "Lazy Senior" wrote in message news:Dse9f.3726$zT6.3512@trnddc06... > I recently acquired a Viking Ranger in nice working condx. > > I am interested in using this on AM on 160, 80, and 40 mtrs. The Ranger > runs around 40 watts Am carrier output. I would like to get an amplifier > to use with this xmtr, maybe a vintage amp. What should I be looking > for? I would like to run legal Am Limit on these 3 bands. Should I > forget about Vintage Amps and get a modern Amp? Suggestions please. Any > pitfalls to using a modern Amp? > > Thanx > > Lazy Senior This is not as easy as it seems. AM peak power is 4 times the carrier. A 100% modulated 40 watt AM signal is actually producing 160 watts PEP. The linear amplifier could only be driven to about 25% output on an unmodulated carrier from an AM transmitter, otherwise it would be severely overdriven on modulation peaks. If you could drive a linear to 1000 watts, the maximum carrier power for AM would require the drive to be set for about 250 watts max. If you want more power you could drive a class C amplifier, and apply high level modulation directly to it. Trying to "amplify" an AM signal is very, very inefficient and difficult to set up properly. Pete Article: 100398 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: " Uncle Peter" References: Subject: Re: FA: Collins 51S-1 Receiver in Scrap Condition Message-ID: Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 21:07:57 -0500 "Don Bowey" wrote in message news:BF8AA70A.1770B% > I bet the eBay auction where you bought it said something like.... > > "I'm selling this for a friend and I don't know much about radios, but it > looks real nice except for a couple missing thingys. I didn't turn it on, > so I don't know if it works, but my friend said he thought it does...." > Probably more like "I'll make sure it is properly boxed for shipment..." Article: 100399 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Lazy Senior Subject: Re: Old Xmtrs, "Ancient Modulation" and Amps References: Message-ID: Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 02:38:22 GMT Uncle Peter wrote: > > This is not as easy as it seems. AM peak power is > 4 times the carrier. A 100% modulated 40 watt AM > signal is actually producing 160 watts PEP. Yes, I know it is not as easy as it seems, that is what I posted the message looking for suggestions. I presently use a Viking Valiant putting out 140 Am carrier watts. It has worked very nicely. Now also,I have a Viking Ranger, puts out 40 Am carrier watts. I want more power, especially on 160 mtrs. Ok it is 1956 when these xmtrs were made. If I had a Ranger then, what would I buy for an amp? I realize one problem I may have is 160 mtrs (a band I love) was restricted in 1956 and many radios, xmtrs, amps didnt have 160 mtrs. So, I want to run 375 watts Am Legal limit with a Viking Ranger on 160,80,40 mtrs preferably with a Vintage Amp, but will consider modern amps. What are my options - no homebrew.. thanx Lazy Senior Article: 100400 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: " Uncle Peter" References: Subject: Re: Old Xmtrs, "Ancient Modulation" and Amps Message-ID: Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 21:46:05 -0500 "Lazy Senior" wrote in message news:ysf9f.20182$ti.12230@trnddc02... > Uncle Peter wrote: > > > > Ok it is 1956 when these xmtrs were made. If I had a Ranger then, what > would I buy for an amp? > Heathkit KL-1 Chippewa? Although that probably dates a few years later, and may have been a "match" for the Apache. The 4-400s could probably withstand the duty cycle for AM operation. Besides the PEP issues, you have to make sure the amp and its power supply will withstand AM continuous carrier operation. Most hams back then would have used the Ranger as an exciter for a Class C amplifier deck with it's own high-level AM modulator. That's the best way to do what you propose. Article: 100401 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Phil Witt Subject: Re: Old Xmtrs, "Ancient Modulation" and Amps Message-ID: References: Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 21:02:51 -0600 On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 21:46:05 -0500, " Uncle Peter" wrote: >Most hams back then would have used the Ranger as an exciter >for a Class C amplifier deck with it's own high-level AM modulator. >That's the best way to do what you propose. 100% correct. Article: 100402 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Clif Holland" References: <11m9l4pf51atk6d@corp.supernews.com> Subject: Re: Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground Message-ID: Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 03:17:34 GMT Not picking on the "grunts" but the upper level would be hard pressed to find the bathroom. -- Clif Holland KA5IPF www.avvid.com "Phil Kane" wrote in message news:cuvyxnansvbet.ip73mz1.pminews@newsgroups.comcast.net... > On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 16:26:51 GMT, Clif Holland wrote: > >>The FCC is Reactive not Proactive. The latter would require thought. > > The latter requires commitment on the part of very high level > management, all political appointees who do not understand what > the agency does in the field nor why resources (personnel and > equipment) should be expended on it. > > I say that as a long-retired FCC field enforcement manager who is > not charmed by what the agency has become lately. > > -- > 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane > > From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest > Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon > > Article: 100403 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Ron in Radio Heaven Subject: Re: Old Xmtrs, "Ancient Modulation" and Amps References: Message-ID: <9Qg9f.895$Sk2.221310@twister.southeast.rr.com> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 04:11:49 GMT Lazy Senior wrote: > Uncle Peter wrote: > Ok it is 1956 when these xmtrs were made. If I had a Ranger then, what > would I buy for an amp? > Johnson desk kilowatt, lots of them get driven by Rangers. Ron Article: 100404 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 01:19:47 -0400 From: Bill Subject: Re: Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground References: <11m9l4pf51atk6d@corp.supernews.com> Message-ID: Phil Kane wrote: > > I say that as a long-retired FCC field enforcement manager who is > not charmed by what the agency has become lately. Hmmm....I probably have a notice here somewhere with your autograph :) Does the FCC still go after Novices with 40m harmonics falling out of band on 10 meters or has the freeband CB QRM covered up all of the violations? Just kidding. Well, no...not really. -Bill ex-WN4SXX Article: 100405 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: gsm@mendelson.com (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) Subject: Re: Improving the Drake TR-3 Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 07:01:03 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <2M89f.1688$8c5.1058@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net> In article <2M89f.1688$8c5.1058@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, COLIN LAMB wrote: > Nope> I have a TR-5. It has an analog vfo. There is a separate > synthesizer for the TR-5, but it made of unobtanium and priced accordingly. You're right. I just check the documentation. I was fooled by the external VFO having being digitial. >From now on, I'll have to tune it more slowly. :-) I was assuming the 100Hz jumps were inherent in the synthesizer and are only the display. > The TR-5 came out after the TR-7 with the intent of being a poor man's TR-7. > But, it was priced the same as the Japanese rigs with a synthesizer and many > more bells and whistles. Yes, I also have a TS-430s, which I think is around the same time. It has AM send and receive (send may be DSRC, I don't remember), FM, more filter options (TR-5 has one additional, TS-430 has one for SSB and one for CW), 8 memories, two "VFOs", etc. It also has a more sensitive receiver, but it has a lot more noise. > > The TR-5 is really closer to a solid state KWM-2 than a solid state TR-4. > it is one of those perfect for your deserted island, where you cannot get > parts. That's for sure. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 You should have boycotted Google while you could, now Google supported BPL is in action. Time is running out on worldwide radio communication. Article: 100406 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: gsm@mendelson.com (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) Subject: Re: Improving the Drake TR-3 Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 07:06:01 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <4e79f.3011$qk4.1284@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> In article , Steve Reinhardt wrote: > Yeah, thus my point about getting a basket case to play with. My current > TR-3 will be cleaned up so it's representative of the best 1963 had to > offer. The 'new' one may fall under the doctor's knife (;-)... Since the TR-5 had an external DIGITAL VFO, maybe you should "convert" your TR-3 that way. THen you have the best of both worlds. A pto for tuning in that wandering signal by hand, and a Digital VFO for memories, more solid frequency control etc. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 You should have boycotted Google while you could, now Google supported BPL is in action. Time is running out on worldwide radio communication. Article: 100408 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "vt245" References: Subject: Re: Old Xmtrs, "Ancient Modulation" and Amps Message-ID: <8Pp9f.4252$Lv.1119@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 14:25:08 GMT > There are plenty of decent used linear amps out there if you want to go > that route, but if you think about it in dB, 1000W isn't _that_ much > more than 10W. Only a few S-units at the receiver. > --scott Uhhhhh yeah it is. 1000w to 10 w is 20db ... Article: 100409 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) Subject: Re: Old Xmtrs, "Ancient Modulation" and Amps Date: 31 Oct 2005 09:34:59 -0500 Message-ID: References: <8Pp9f.4252$Lv.1119@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net> In article <8Pp9f.4252$Lv.1119@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net>, vt245 wrote: > >> There are plenty of decent used linear amps out there if you want to go >> that route, but if you think about it in dB, 1000W isn't _that_ much >> more than 10W. Only a few S-units at the receiver. > >Uhhhhh yeah it is. 1000w to 10 w is 20db ... Right, it's only 20 dB. That is far less than the day to day propagation variations. Only 3 1/3 S-units. Not much at all. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." Article: 100410 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Bob Spooner" Subject: Good source for Service Manuals Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 10:12:39 -0500 Message-ID: I am looking for a service manual for a rig I acquired. I've found listings for it at the following places: Ham Radio Manuals by WB2JKJ - Icom Yaesu Kenwood Heathkit Drake and more! Amateur Radio products and equipment by rossdist.com Vintage Manuals, Inc. Catalog Manual Mall: Owners and Technical Manuals for Manufacturers JA - KX Has anyone had experience with any of these, and if so, which would you recommend? 73, Bob AD3K Article: 100411 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "John N9JG" Subject: Re: Old Xmtrs, "Ancient Modulation" and Amps Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 10:16:56 -0500 Message-ID: References: <8Pp9f.4252$Lv.1119@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net> That's BS! If what you have stated is true, no one would run more than 10 watts. Believe me, 20 dB is _very_ noticeable. "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message news:dk5a2j$4he$1@panix2.panix.com... > In article <8Pp9f.4252$Lv.1119@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net>, > vt245 wrote: > Right, it's only 20 dB. That is far less than the day to day propagation > variations. Only 3 1/3 S-units. Not much at all. Article: 100412 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) Subject: Re: Old Xmtrs, "Ancient Modulation" and Amps Date: 31 Oct 2005 10:25:59 -0500 Message-ID: References: <8Pp9f.4252$Lv.1119@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net> John N9JG wrote: >That's BS! If what you have stated is true, no one would run more than 10 >watts. Believe me, 20 dB is _very_ noticeable. Sure, it's very noticeable. But, as someone running half a watt CW these days, I can say that it's not everything. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." Article: 100413 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Randy or Sherry Guttery Subject: Re: Old Xmtrs, "Ancient Modulation" and Amps References: Message-ID: Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 10:14:20 -0600 Scott Dorsey wrote: > There are plenty of decent used linear amps out there if you want to go > that route, but if you think about it in dB, 1000W isn't _that_ much > more than 10W. What??? 10W -> 1000W is 20db. Distance doubles every 6db - do the math... > Only a few S-units at the receiver. Talking about "S-units" in such a discussion is meaningless *unless* one has checked the calibration of one's meter - AND states the calibration characteristics to qualify the readings. The reason is there is no "universal definition or standard" of "S units". There have been proposals - but so far no standards. The proposal that seemed to have had the best chance was made in the 40's - and that was where S9 = 50uv (at the antenna connector) - and each "S unit" down being -6db. As noted - that never became a standard - in fact today most modern receivers seem to be around 5db per S unit The reason seems to be that using -5db/S results in S0 below 50uv being right around the noise floor of most rigs - i.e. .2uv (S+N/N=10db). But unless one states what specific characteristics of "S units" they are using - talking about "S units" is meaningless (i.e. a "few" "S units" could be 3db - they could be 18db - or more -- who knows if it's not stated). sheeesh... -- randy guttery A Tender Tale - a page dedicated to those Ships and Crews so vital to the United States Silent Service: http://tendertale.com Article: 100414 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "vt245" References: <8Pp9f.4252$Lv.1119@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net> Subject: Re: Old Xmtrs, "Ancient Modulation" and Amps Message-ID: Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 17:00:56 GMT Agreed , QRP can be very cool. I am finding similar results with PSK and helshreiber on less than 50 watts with regular European contacts. And yes, you can make bunches of CW contacts with a single 6L6. "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message news:dk5d27$4t0$1@panix2.panix.com... > John N9JG wrote: >>That's BS! If what you have stated is true, no one would run more than 10 >>watts. Believe me, 20 dB is _very_ noticeable. > > Sure, it's very noticeable. But, as someone running half a watt CW > these days, I can say that it's not everything. > --scott > > -- > "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." Article: 100415 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "vt245" References: Subject: Re: Old Xmtrs, "Ancient Modulation" and Amps Message-ID: <67s9f.5159$Kv.2172@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 17:02:58 GMT What??? 10W -> 1000W is 20db. Distance doubles every 6db - do the math... 6db is for voltage and current NOT for power .... do the research "Randy or Sherry Guttery" wrote in message news:ynr9f.23005$_31.19466@bignews5.bellsouth.net... > Scott Dorsey wrote: > >> There are plenty of decent used linear amps out there if you want to go >> that route, but if you think about it in dB, 1000W isn't _that_ much >> more than 10W. > > > What??? 10W -> 1000W is 20db. Distance doubles every 6db - do the math... > > > Only a few S-units at the receiver. > > Talking about "S-units" in such a discussion is meaningless *unless* one > has checked the calibration of one's meter - AND states the calibration > characteristics to qualify the readings. > > The reason is there is no "universal definition or standard" of "S units". > There have been proposals - but so far no standards. The proposal that > seemed to have had the best chance was made in the 40's - and that was > where S9 = 50uv (at the antenna connector) - and each "S unit" down > being -6db. As noted - that never became a standard - in fact today most > modern receivers seem to be around 5db per S unit The reason seems to be > that using -5db/S results in S0 below 50uv being right around the noise > floor of most rigs - i.e. .2uv (S+N/N=10db). > > But unless one states what specific characteristics of "S units" they are > using - talking about "S units" is meaningless (i.e. a "few" "S units" > could be 3db - they could be 18db - or more -- who knows if it's not > stated). > > > sheeesh... > -- > randy guttery > > A Tender Tale - a page dedicated to those Ships and Crews > so vital to the United States Silent Service: > http://tendertale.com Article: 100416 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: spamatody@spam.spam.spam Subject: Re: Old Xmtrs, "Ancient Modulation" and Amps Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 11:15:00 -0600 Message-ID: References: <9Qg9f.895$Sk2.221310@twister.southeast.rr.com> >Johnson desk kilowatt, lots of them get driven by Rangers. > >Ron To buy an EFJ Desk Kilowatt you need to be prepared to mortgage your house, wife, and kids or win the lottery... Article: 100417 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Lazy Senior Subject: Old Xmtrs, "Ancient Modulation" and Modern Amps Message-ID: <_xs9f.500$0d.147@trnddc08> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 17:31:38 GMT Ok, the Modern Amp seems to be the way to go with an old AM xmtr, mainly because they have 160 mtrs (THE band where higher power is almost necessary)and also I can call a 800 number and get one fast. Which amp is best for my circumstance? I have a Ranger running 40 watts AM for drive.I want legal limit AM or close to it with a modern Amp that can take it and not burn up because of the duty cycle. Suggestions under $2500 new price please. Which amp tube would be best for AM - 572's - 811's - 3-500's or the high gain ceramic tubes? Thanx Lazy Senior Article: 100418 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Randy or Sherry Guttery Subject: Re: Old Xmtrs, "Ancient Modulation" and Amps References: <67s9f.5159$Kv.2172@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net> Message-ID: Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 12:16:06 -0600 vt245 wrote: > What??? 10W -> 1000W is 20db. Distance doubles every 6db - do the math... > > 6db is for voltage and current NOT for power .... do the research Ok so I mixed db and dbi, point for you. Now tell me that 1000W is "almost" indistinguishable at the recieving end from 10W - and S-units are a valid comparison standard... Sheeesh. -- randy guttery A Tender Tale - a page dedicated to those Ships and Crews so vital to the United States Silent Service: http://tendertale.com Article: 100419 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: et472@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Black) Subject: Re: Old Xmtrs, "Ancient Modulation" and Modern Amps Date: 31 Oct 2005 18:24:44 GMT Message-ID: References: <_xs9f.500$0d.147@trnddc08> Lazy Senior (lazysenior@verizon.net) writes: > Ok, the Modern Amp seems to be the way to go with an old AM xmtr, mainly > because they have 160 mtrs (THE band where higher power is almost > necessary)and also I can call a 800 number and get one fast. > No, and I don't know where you got that. Nobody used a linear amplifier for AM in amateur radio circles. They either used medium power to start with, or went with a full kilowatt amplifier with suitable modulator. They made sure they had the space, and made sure the floor was strong enough. If your transmitter isn't powerful enough for you, then you find a more powerful AM transmitter. If that's still not enough, then you build or buy a full power amplifier or transmitter. You won't get much power out of a linear amplifier because of the way things work. Just because nobody makes a kilowatt AM transmitter these days, and you aren't interested in building one, does not mean a linear amplifier is "the way to go". Michael VE2BVW > Which amp is best for my circumstance? > > I have a Ranger running 40 watts AM for drive.I want legal limit AM or > close to it with a modern Amp that can take it and not burn up because > of the duty cycle. Suggestions under $2500 new price please. > > Which amp tube would be best for AM - 572's - 811's - 3-500's or the > high gain ceramic tubes? > > Thanx > > Lazy Senior Article: 100420 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Randy or Sherry Guttery Subject: Re: Old Xmtrs, "Ancient Modulation" and Amps References: <67s9f.5159$Kv.2172@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net> Message-ID: <_wt9f.24927$_31.9903@bignews5.bellsouth.net> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 12:40:56 -0600 Randy or Sherry Guttery wrote: > Ok so I mixed db and dbi, point for you. Now tell me that 1000W is > "almost" indistinguishable at the recieving end from 10W - and S-units > are a valid comparison standard... Well this time my spell checker got me - try again - mixed dB and dBu, (field strength). that's what i get for shooting fast and from the hip... -- randy guttery A Tender Tale - a page dedicated to those Ships and Crews so vital to the United States Silent Service: http://tendertale.com Article: 100421 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Jerry" References: <11m5i14dcsj8v17@corp.supernews.com> <11m8h0ot9n6ca0c@corp.supernews.com> Subject: Re: MasterMobile Message-ID: Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 13:41:39 -0500 "Earl Needham" wrote in message news:11m8h0ot9n6ca0c@corp.supernews.com... > "COLIN LAMB" wrote in message > news:OXL8f.3359$yX2.209@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net... >> Next you will tell us you need an Elmac AF-67 and dynamotor. >> >> Keep it up, good to know that people who know about this stuff are still >> alive. >> >> Colin K7FM > > Actually, my plan is to get the MasterMobile together, then find a 62 > or > maybe a 64 Ford, and a Swan 700CX to go in it! > > Earl > > -- > Earl Needham > Clovis, New Mexico USA SHUCKS! Even my '31 Model A is too old! ;) Jerry > > Article: 100422 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) Subject: Re: Old Xmtrs, "Ancient Modulation" and Amps Date: 31 Oct 2005 13:44:24 -0500 Message-ID: References: <67s9f.5159$Kv.2172@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net> Randy or Sherry Guttery wrote: >vt245 wrote: >> What??? 10W -> 1000W is 20db. Distance doubles every 6db - do the math... >> >> 6db is for voltage and current NOT for power .... do the research > >Ok so I mixed db and dbi, point for you. Now tell me that 1000W is >"almost" indistinguishable at the recieving end from 10W - and S-units >are a valid comparison standard... I won't tell you that they are almost indistinguishable. But I will say that S-units should be a valid comparison standard, at least with military gear that _is_ calibrated in 6 dB increments. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." Article: 100423 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Jerry" References: Subject: Re: Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground Message-ID: <_zt9f.31301$ty1.17789@bignews1.bellsouth.net> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 13:44:14 -0500 "-=H=-" wrote in message news:GQ73f.1$z21.0@dfw-service2.ext.ray.com... > Hi all, > > I shipped two boxes of amateur radio equipment yesterday from > Lewisville, Texas to Cooper City, Florida. As always, I used > FedEx Ground. Here's why: > > Two packages: > (1) weight 33.60 lbs, size 24 x 21 x 16 inches, insured $900 > (2) weight 13.95 lbs, size 22 x 22 x 14 inches, insured $100 > > FedEx Ground, delivery in 3 business days, cost $38.77 > UPS Ground, delivery in 4-5 business days, cost $56.07 > > UPS would have charged $17.30 more than FedEx (that's almost > 45 percent) and would have taken 1-2 days longer to arrive. > To me, $17.30 is not a trivial amount of money. > > Something to think about next time you're shipping packages! > > 73, > Dean K5DH AND UPS will destroy a cinder block, much less your valuable ham gear! "Reasonable Care" in handling is not in UPS's vocab! 73 Jerry > Article: 100424 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "John N9JG" Subject: Re: Old Xmtrs, "Ancient Modulation" and Amps Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 13:54:02 -0500 Message-ID: References: If you are only satisfied with the VERY best, then follow this link. This particular rig only runs 500 watts on 160, but that's because that was the legal 160 meter limit when the transmitter was sold. I am sure it would be easy to remove the artificial power constraint for 160 meters. Go for it! http://www.wa3key.com/kw1.html "Lazy Senior" wrote in message news:Dse9f.3726$zT6.3512@trnddc06... >I recently acquired a Viking Ranger in nice working condx. > > I am interested in using this on AM on 160, 80, and 40 mtrs. The Ranger > runs around 40 watts Am carrier output. I would like to get an amplifier > to use with this xmtr, maybe a vintage amp. What should I be looking for? > I would like to run legal Am Limit on these 3 bands. Should I forget about > Vintage Amps and get a modern Amp? Suggestions please. Any pitfalls to > using a modern Amp? > > Thanx > > Lazy Senior Article: 100425 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Bob W7AVK Subject: Re: Old Xmtrs, "Ancient Modulation" and Modern Amps References: <_xs9f.500$0d.147@trnddc08> Message-ID: <_Vs9f.29$mm2.174240@news.sisna.com> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 09:58:00 -0800 Lazy - Most modern amps being "linear" are not the way to go for AM as they have poorer efficiency than the older Class C amps with high level modulation. If you want an AM transmitter check out the ARRL handbooks and ham ads for the 1950 to 1970s when AM was king. Higher power on 160 is nice as the band can be noisy and the higher power is needed to over come the noise level at the receiving end. BTW - a way around this is to limit the receive bandwidth as with CW or other slow speed forms of modulation and some most interesting work has been done with very low power levels. A problem you will find with older AM gear is that the manufactures didn't support 160 meters years ago. The band had been taken over by the government's LORAN A service during WWII and partly given back to the hams with a 50 watt power lamination depending on where you lived. Most hams didn't attempt to use 160 and this limited store bought equipment. If you have the room and technical ability might consider converting a salvaged AM broadcast transmitter. They are available as most stations are removing them to upgrade to much more efficient solid state units. Good luck in your quest 73 Bob W7AVK \ Lazy Senior wrote: > > Ok, the Modern Amp seems to be the way to go with an old AM xmtr, mainly > because they have 160 mtrs (THE band where higher power is almost > necessary)and also I can call a 800 number and get one fast. > > Which amp is best for my circumstance? > > I have a Ranger running 40 watts AM for drive.I want legal limit AM or > close to it with a modern Amp that can take it and not burn up because > of the duty cycle. Suggestions under $2500 new price please. > > Which amp tube would be best for AM - 572's - 811's - 3-500's or the > high gain ceramic tubes? > > Thanx > > Lazy Senior Article: 100426 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Bri" Subject: AR88s and PCBs Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 19:16:38 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: I noticed some concern as to the possibility (let's not put it any stronger than that) of PCB's (polychlorinated biphenyls) being used in the oil filled capacitors of RCA AR88's. I have 2 such sets, one of which is weeping like a baby. I intend to replace the old capacitors with modern equivalents inside the old cans. Is it really likely to be PCB fluid? If so, how to safely drain, dispose and clean up the dripped fluid without wiping out much of Western Europe (or at least myself). Bri Article: 100427 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Lazy Senior Subject: Re: Old Xmtrs, "Ancient Modulation" and Modern Amps References: <_xs9f.500$0d.147@trnddc08> Message-ID: Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 19:47:52 GMT Michael Black wrote: > > Nobody used a linear amplifier for AM in amateur radio circles. > They either used medium power to start with, or went with a full kilowatt > amplifier with suitable modulator. They made sure they had the space, > and made sure the floor was strong enough. > You must not work AM. I talk daily on AM (with my Valiant)and find hams running linear amps at legal limit. They ALL sound good. Most are driving the amp with old xmtrs.... Lazy Senior Article: 100428 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) Subject: Re: Old Xmtrs, "Ancient Modulation" and Modern Amps Date: 31 Oct 2005 14:51:11 -0500 Message-ID: References: <_xs9f.500$0d.147@trnddc08> Lazy Senior wrote: >Michael Black wrote: > >> Nobody used a linear amplifier for AM in amateur radio circles. >> They either used medium power to start with, or went with a full kilowatt >> amplifier with suitable modulator. They made sure they had the space, >> and made sure the floor was strong enough. > >You must not work AM. I talk daily on AM (with my Valiant)and find hams >running linear amps at legal limit. They ALL sound good. Most are >driving the amp with old xmtrs.... Folks are doing that today, but in previous years it was much more common to run the transmitter with no modulation, and run it into a (very nonlinear) amplifier running the legal limit. Then you'd modulate the finals of the outboard amplifier. The good part about this is that your amplifier is now much smaller and has lower input power than a linear amplifier that is truly linear. The bad news is that now you need a modulation deck putting out half as much AF power as your RF output, and a gargantuan transformer. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." Article: 100429 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Lazy Senior Subject: Re: Old Xmtrs, "Ancient Modulation" and Modern Amps References: <_xs9f.500$0d.147@trnddc08> Message-ID: Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 20:03:34 GMT Lazy Senior wrote: > > Which amp is best for my circumstance? > > > Which amp tube would be best for AM - 572's - 811's - 3-500's or the > high gain ceramic tubes? > > Thanx > > Lazy Senior Lazy: People dont seem to read what you are asking - Suggestions for a modern linear amp to be used on Am. --A simple question-- but everyone "wants" to tell you it cant be done,shouldnt be done, or you dont need high power,buy another xmtr, etc etc. Yes, I Know people use Linear amps with old xmtrs, I have talked to many of them. Lazy Senior Article: 100430 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Randy or Sherry Guttery Subject: Re: Old Xmtrs, "Ancient Modulation" and Amps References: <67s9f.5159$Kv.2172@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net> Message-ID: Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 14:04:35 -0600 Scott Dorsey wrote: > Randy or Sherry Guttery wrote: > I won't tell you that they are almost indistinguishable. But I will say > that S-units should be a valid comparison standard, at least with military > gear that _is_ calibrated in 6 dB increments. > --scott On virtually all of the mil receiver's I'm familiar with (or remember much about) the signal strength (carrier) meter is marked in dBs (not S units). I know that some of the "conversion sets" (like the RAOs) had S meters (though the meter was dropped after S/N200 of the RAO-6; and none of the RAO-7 had a meter). R-390s, 390As and 391s are all dBs; as were the 1051s. Perhaps the newer ones (post 1980) have S-meters? That's an interesting point - what military receivers --besides conversion sets -- have "S meters" (i.e. actually marked in S units)? best regards... -- randy guttery A Tender Tale - a page dedicated to those Ships and Crews so vital to the United States Silent Service: http://tendertale.com Article: 100431 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: AndyB Subject: Re: AR88s and PCBs References: Message-ID: Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 20:08:40 GMT Bri wrote: > I noticed some concern as to the possibility (let's not put it any stronger > than that) of PCB's (polychlorinated biphenyls) being used in the oil filled > capacitors of RCA AR88's. I have 2 such sets, one of which is weeping like > a baby. I intend to replace the old capacitors with modern equivalents > inside the old cans. Is it really likely to be PCB fluid? If so, how to > safely drain, dispose and clean up the dripped fluid without wiping out much > of Western Europe (or at least myself). > > Bri > > There is great disparity between opinions on the toxicity of PCBs, from 'put it on your cornflakes' to 'satans death cum'. A lot of it comes >from the fact that there are lots of different kinds and that related contaminants such as Dioxin are often present, and also from the fact that a lot of the claimed toxicity can take decades to show itself (PCBs and the like are very fat soluble and stable and just sit in your body for years) as it takes the form of endocrine disruption. Its a minefield of opinion, trod it in depth a couple of years back Nope, know fuck all about transformers - ah, you mean audio output. I've always assumed the same - match if possible, go over and you lose volume but its ok and never go under or its boomboom or at least fryfry. -- Get your free morse ringtone at http://www.planetofnoise.com Article: 100432 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Randy or Sherry Guttery Subject: Re: Old Xmtrs, "Ancient Modulation" and Modern Amps References: <_xs9f.500$0d.147@trnddc08> <_Vs9f.29$mm2.174240@news.sisna.com> Message-ID: Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 14:17:53 -0600 Bob W7AVK wrote: > If you have the room and technical ability might consider converting a > salvaged AM broadcast transmitter. They are available as most stations > are removing them to upgrade to much more efficient solid state units. Yup - a Harris MW1 would be ideal... save for the power transformer(s) nearly everything else can be either hand made (coils, etc.) or bought off the shelf (transistors, etc.- including the PAs). The "output" unit consists of 13 identical RF modules twelve as PAs - one a driver. They "normally" run a 83W each - if one dies - the matching network effectively isolates it - the drive to the remaining PAs "steps up" - and it stays at a KW. One of easiest to maintain transmitters around (from both layout - and parts availability). PA B+ is (IIRC) something like 70V - the modulators consist of two sections - one that passes the 70V (i.e. saturated at 0% modulation) - or ramps down towards cutoff with negative modulation- the other section of the modulator is tied to +140V - and as positive modulation is applied - it overrides the 70V rail - and up it goes pulling the PAs with it. Capable of 110% positive modulation if everything is up to snuff. Each of those 13 identical PA modules includes it's modulator (both sections). Very efficient for an AM transmitter. best regards... -- randy guttery A Tender Tale - a page dedicated to those Ships and Crews so vital to the United States Silent Service: http://tendertale.com Article: 100433 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) Subject: Re: Old Xmtrs, "Ancient Modulation" and Modern Amps Date: 31 Oct 2005 15:20:06 -0500 Message-ID: References: <_xs9f.500$0d.147@trnddc08> Lazy Senior wrote: > >Lazy: >People dont seem to read what you are asking - Suggestions for a modern >linear amp to be used on Am. --A simple question-- but everyone "wants" > to tell you it cant be done,shouldnt be done, or you dont need high >power,buy another xmtr, etc etc. > >Yes, I Know people use Linear amps with old xmtrs, I have talked to many >of them. Well, yes, but you can use ANY modern linear amp, just as long as it is rated for full power at AM. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." Article: 100434 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Dday" References: Subject: Re: AR88s and PCBs Message-ID: Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 20:27:51 GMT Why would you want to replace the oil capacitors anyways? They are still good. They have lasted 60 years and they will undoubtedly outlast us both. Leave it for the next generation who will neither be able to read or write anyways. "Bri" wrote in message news:dk5qim$6h8$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com... >I noticed some concern as to the possibility (let's not put it any stronger >than that) of PCB's (polychlorinated biphenyls) being used in the oil >filled capacitors of RCA AR88's. I have 2 such sets, one of which is >weeping like a baby. I intend to replace the old capacitors with modern >equivalents inside the old cans. Is it really likely to be PCB fluid? If >so, how to safely drain, dispose and clean up the dripped fluid without >wiping out much of Western Europe (or at least myself). > > Bri > Article: 100435 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: " Uncle Peter" References: Subject: Re: AR88s and PCBs Message-ID: Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 17:19:23 -0500 "Dday" wrote in message news:b7v9f.4212$8W.4084@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com... > Why would you want to replace the oil capacitors anyways? > > They are still good. They have lasted 60 years and they will undoubtedly > outlast us both. > > Leave it for the next generation who will neither be able to read or write > anyways. > > > The oil filled bathtub caps in surplus military gear are notorious for being electrically leaky. Still a paper cap, regardless of the type of oil. Pete Article: 100436 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: " Uncle Peter" References: <_xs9f.500$0d.147@trnddc08> Subject: Re: Old Xmtrs, "Ancient Modulation" and Modern Amps Message-ID: Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 17:24:26 -0500 > > Lazy Senior > > Lazy: > People dont seem to read what you are asking - Suggestions for a modern > linear amp to be used on Am. --A simple question-- but everyone "wants" > to tell you it cant be done,shouldnt be done, or you dont need high > power,buy another xmtr, etc etc. > > Yes, I Know people use Linear amps with old xmtrs, I have talked to many > of them. > > Lazy Senior > > Ya know... You specifically asked what type of "linears" would have been use back when AM the common mode. Your question was answered. Now your starting with the backtracking BS about a modern "amplifier." If you "know" people who are using linears with old xmtrs", why not just ASK THEM WHAT THEY ARE USING and quit trolling this newsgroup with your BS? Peter k1zjh Article: 100437 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: " Uncle Peter" References: <8Pp9f.4252$Lv.1119@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net> Subject: Re: Old Xmtrs, "Ancient Modulation" and Amps Message-ID: <2Tw9f.41749$fE5.4557@fed1read06> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 17:27:23 -0500 "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message news:dk5d27$4t0$1@panix2.panix.com... > John N9JG wrote: > >That's BS! If what you have stated is true, no one would run more than 10 > >watts. Believe me, 20 dB is _very_ noticeable. > > Sure, it's very noticeable. But, as someone running half a watt CW > these days, I can say that it's not everything. > --scott > > -- > "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." The problem is a ham linear will not deliver 1000 watts carrier power on AM. It would have to be rated for 4kW to do so. PEP on AM is at least 4X carrier. Pete Article: 100438 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Edward Knobloch Subject: Re: Old Xmtrs, "Ancient Modulation" and Amps References: Message-ID: <0jx9f.10151$UW5.3071@trndny09> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 22:57:00 GMT Hi, No real pitfall with a modern amp, as long as you get one rated for continuous duty a.m. operation. You need tubes with a lot of plate dissipation rating, since a.m. linear is inefficent, maybe 25% carrier efficiency. Look for a linear with ceramic tubes, a big blower and a heavy-duty power supply. You may need an rf power attenuator between the Ranger and the linear. Most modern linear amps produce 1500W peak output with only about 65w peak drive. Your Ranger will produce 160W pep output in a.m. mode (at 40W carrier). The linear will be producing 375W carrier, at legal limit, so it will be almost 10dB more output than the barefoot Ranger. With no modulation, the linear's power input will be about 1,500 Watts (assuming 25% efficiency). A lot of heat will be dissipted from the linear's plates, about 1,125 Watts. A T-network made of 3 each 100W lightbulbs may be an OK rf attenuator at the linear's input, so you don't overdrive it. 73, Ed Knobloch Lazy Senior wrote: > I recently acquired a Viking Ranger in nice working condx. > > I am interested in using this on AM on 160, 80, and 40 mtrs. The Ranger > runs around 40 watts Am carrier output. I would like to get an amplifier > to use with this xmtr, maybe a vintage amp. What should I be looking > for? I would like to run legal Am Limit on these 3 bands. Should I > forget about Vintage Amps and get a modern Amp? Suggestions please. Any > pitfalls to using a modern Amp? > > Thanx > > Lazy Senior Article: 100439 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Lazy Senior Subject: Re: Old Xmtrs, "Ancient Modulation" and Modern Amps References: <_xs9f.500$0d.147@trnddc08> Message-ID: Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 23:05:51 GMT Uncle Peter wrote: > > If you "know" people who are using linears with old > xmtrs", why not just ASK THEM WHAT THEY ARE > USING and quit trolling this newsgroup > with your BS? > > Peter k1zjh > > Same old crap from usenet, its why I hardly use it for getting info. Too many assholes like you. Self Proclaimed experts always call you a troll when they cant supply you with usefull info. If you think I am trolling just put me on your kill list, I wont miss you. I asked a simple question, you just gave me bulshit answers. Most of the really good replys I got via email. Dont bother replying I am not looking for a flamefest.... Lazy Senior Article: 100440 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Lazy Senior Subject: Re: Old Xmtrs, "Ancient Modulation" and Amps References: <0jx9f.10151$UW5.3071@trndny09> Message-ID: Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 23:09:18 GMT Edward Knobloch wrote: > Hi, > > No real pitfall with a modern amp, as long as you get one > rated for continuous duty a.m. operation. > You need tubes with a lot of plate dissipation rating, > since a.m. linear is inefficent, maybe 25% carrier efficiency. > Look for a linear with ceramic tubes, a big blower > and a heavy-duty power supply. > > You may need an rf power attenuator between the Ranger > and the linear. Most modern linear amps > produce 1500W peak output with only about 65w peak drive. > Your Ranger will produce 160W pep output in a.m. mode > (at 40W carrier). The linear will be producing 375W carrier, > at legal limit, so it will be almost 10dB more output > than the barefoot Ranger. With no modulation, > the linear's power input will be about 1,500 Watts > (assuming 25% efficiency). > A lot of heat will be dissipted from the linear's plates, > about 1,125 Watts. > > A T-network made of 3 each 100W lightbulbs may be an OK > rf attenuator at the linear's input, so you don't overdrive it. > > 73, > Ed Knobloch > Ed Thanx - this is one of the most usefull replys I have gotten on this subject. Lazy Senior Article: 100441 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Brian Goldsmith" References: Subject: Re: AR88s and PCBs Message-ID: Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 00:01:35 GMT "Dday" wrote Why would you want to replace the oil capacitors anyways? They are still good. They have lasted 60 years and they will undoubtedly outlast us both. ****Reread the OP original posting," I have 2 such sets, one of which is weeping like a baby". They are obviously NOT good. Brian Goldsmith. Article: 100442 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Ron in Radio Heaven Subject: Clough-Brengle 87 Project Page Message-ID: Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 00:05:10 GMT I've started another web page for the Clough-Brengle model 87 preservation project. http://radioheaven.homestead.com/CB87project.html There are photos, with more coming of the as found condition, and I'll be adding more in the days to come as the project progresses. Check it out if you're interested. 73, Ron Article: 100443 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "John N9JG" Subject: Re: Old Xmtrs, "Ancient Modulation" and Amps Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 19:27:28 -0500 Message-ID: References: <8Pp9f.4252$Lv.1119@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net> <2Tw9f.41749$fE5.4557@fed1read06> <4366A67E.80300@adelphia.net> Thanks for pointing this out. Unlike SSB, the legal limit for AM has been reduced from what it had previously been. "Roger D Johnson" wrote in message news:4366A67E.80300@adelphia.net... > Uncle Peter wrote: > >> The problem is a ham linear will not deliver 1000 watts carrier >> power on AM. It would have to be rated for 4kW to do so. >> PEP on AM is at least 4X carrier. >> >> Pete > > The current power limit for AM is 1500 watts PEP. This > means a carrier output of 375 watts. Easily obtainable > with the proper linear amp. > > 73, Roger > > > -- > Remove tilde (~) to reply > > Remember the USS Liberty (AGTR-5) > http://ussliberty.org/ Article: 100444 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: " Uncle Peter" References: <8Pp9f.4252$Lv.1119@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net> <2Tw9f.41749$fE5.4557@fed1read06> <4366A67E.80300@adelphia.net> Subject: Re: Old Xmtrs, "Ancient Modulation" and Amps Message-ID: Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 19:34:32 -0500 "Roger D Johnson" wrote in message news:4366A67E.80300@adelphia.net... > Uncle Peter wrote: > > > The problem is a ham linear will not deliver 1000 watts carrier > > power on AM. It would have to be rated for 4kW to do so. > > PEP on AM is at least 4X carrier. > > > > Pete > > The current power limit for AM is 1500 watts PEP. This > means a carrier output of 375 watts. Easily obtainable > with the proper linear amp. > > 73, Roger > > Roger My point was, forget 10 or 20 dB improvement over a 40 signal. Pete Article: 100445 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: " Uncle Peter" References: <_xs9f.500$0d.147@trnddc08> Subject: Re: Old Xmtrs, "Ancient Modulation" and Modern Amps Message-ID: Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 19:40:29 -0500 > Same old crap from usenet, its why I hardly use it for getting info. Too > many assholes like you. Self Proclaimed experts always call you a troll > when they cant supply you with usefull info. > Crap in, crap out. I still think you're a CBer trolling. I say it again, why not ask all of your AM buddies who you state are running linears?????? The BS meter is pegged. Article: 100446 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Ron Subject: Re: Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground Date: 31 Oct 2005 19:54:22 EST Message-ID: <4366BDD3.1080602@yahoo.com> References: <_zt9f.31301$ty1.17789@bignews1.bellsouth.net> I received a roll of guy cable (almost like a block of iron) today via UPS and would you believe they damaged it. Nothing gets shipped UPS from this person. Jerry wrote: > "-=H=-" wrote in message > news:GQ73f.1$z21.0@dfw-service2.ext.ray.com... > >>Hi all, >> >>I shipped two boxes of amateur radio equipment yesterday from >>Lewisville, Texas to Cooper City, Florida. As always, I used >>FedEx Ground. Here's why: >> >>Two packages: >>(1) weight 33.60 lbs, size 24 x 21 x 16 inches, insured $900 >>(2) weight 13.95 lbs, size 22 x 22 x 14 inches, insured $100 >> >>FedEx Ground, delivery in 3 business days, cost $38.77 >>UPS Ground, delivery in 4-5 business days, cost $56.07 >> >>UPS would have charged $17.30 more than FedEx (that's almost >>45 percent) and would have taken 1-2 days longer to arrive. >>To me, $17.30 is not a trivial amount of money. >> >>Something to think about next time you're shipping packages! >> >>73, >>Dean K5DH > > > AND UPS will destroy a cinder block, much less your valuable ham gear! > "Reasonable Care" in handling is not in UPS's vocab! > > 73 > > Jerry > > > Article: 100447 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Lazy Senior Subject: Re: Old Xmtrs, "Ancient Modulation" and Modern Amps References: <_xs9f.500$0d.147@trnddc08> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 01:18:07 GMT Uncle Peter wrote: > The BS meter is pegged. > > Is that why the call you use "Peter k1zjh" is fake? From Qrz. com - The callsign K1ZJH is not in our database. You gonna use a callsign make sure it is valid - just like this response: ............................................................ Uncle Peter wrote: > The problem is a ham linear will not deliver 1000 watts carrier > power on AM. It would have to be rated for 4kW to do so. > PEP on AM is at least 4X carrier. > > Pete ...................................................................... Everyone knows cept you that legal limit AM is 375 watts carrier... I just dislike self proclaimed "experts" that know little and show it on usenet under fake calls. You made a real fool of yourself this time Peter k1zjh...... And YEAH, I got a ham license, all those nice private emails I received with thoughtfull answers, got my call.... Lazy Senior (no fake call - you wanna know who I am - private email me) Article: 100448 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Ron in Radio Heaven Subject: C-B 87 front panel Message-ID: <96z9f.50$Ea3.30187@twister.southeast.rr.com> Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 00:59:49 GMT Here's a page with a photo of the front of the C-B 87. http://radioheaven.homestead.com/CB87.html 73, Ron Article: 100449 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Mike Andrews" Subject: Re: Old Xmtrs, "Ancient Modulation" and Modern Amps Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 01:25:27 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <_xs9f.500$0d.147@trnddc08> Lazy Senior wrote: > Uncle Peter wrote: >> The BS meter is pegged. > Is that why the call you use "Peter k1zjh" is fake? From Qrz. com - The > callsign K1ZJH is not in our database. > You gonna use a callsign make sure it is valid - just like this response: The FCC thinks it's valid. Whether or not it's in QRZ.com is irrelevant. -- Mike Andrews W5EGO mikea@mikea.ath.cx Tired old sysadmin Article: 100450 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Lazy Senior Subject: Re: Old Xmtrs, "Ancient Modulation" and Modern Amps References: <_xs9f.500$0d.147@trnddc08> Message-ID: <%zz9f.346$7d.162@trnddc01> Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 01:31:39 GMT Mike Andrews wrote: > > > The FCC thinks it's valid. Whether or not it's in QRZ.com is irrelevant. > Hmmm, a new nocoder vanity call? No, most tech lites I know have common sense, Uncle Peter acts like an Extra......... Lazy Senior Article: 100451 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "John N9JG" Subject: Re: Old Xmtrs, "Ancient Modulation" and Amps Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 20:38:58 -0500 Message-ID: References: <8Pp9f.4252$Lv.1119@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net> <2Tw9f.41749$fE5.4557@fed1read06> <4366A67E.80300@adelphia.net> I'll buy that. But, time and time again when on 40 meters SSB, as an example, and running 100 watts, when the receiving station tells me that he is having readability problems with my signal, then when I switch on the Drake L-4B, the user almost always reports a significant improvement in both received signal strength and readability. Going from 100 watts to 1000 watts is 10 dB. Going from 10 watts to 1000 watts would be even more dramatic. I still regard the statement that a 20 dB increase in signal strength is "Not much at all" as pure Tier Scheiss. " Uncle Peter" wrote in message news:gKy9f.42576$fE5.26532@fed1read06... [stuff] > My point was, forget 10 or 20 dB improvement over a 40 signal. > Article: 100452 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Randy or Sherry Guttery Subject: Re: Old Xmtrs, "Ancient Modulation" and Modern Amps References: <_xs9f.500$0d.147@trnddc08> Message-ID: <1Hz9f.31911$ty1.14905@bignews1.bellsouth.net> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 19:41:28 -0600 Lazy Senior wrote: > Is that why the call you use "Peter k1zjh" is fake? From Qrz. com - The > callsign K1ZJH is not in our database. > From the FCC website: Federal Communications Commission Callsign Results [ULS DATABASE] Callsign K1ZJH File Number 9504040209 Applicant Type I Service HA Licensee Name BERTINI, PETER J Address 20 PATSUN R City SOMERS State CT Zip 06071-1810 Operator class E IIRC - that last item is Amateur Extra? Then there is: http://www.cq-vhf.com/Log%20Periodic.html Now who looks "the fool"? Sheeesh... -- randy guttery P1-8-14610 (I'll save ya' the trouble of looking that up, since you seem "look-up impaired" - that's FCC License Radio Telephone First Class w/Ships RADAR issued 5/30/78 - converted to FCC PG-8-4546 current and active). Article: 100453 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Lazy Senior Subject: Re: Old Xmtrs, "Ancient Modulation" and Modern Amps References: <_xs9f.500$0d.147@trnddc08> <1Hz9f.31911$ty1.14905@bignews1.bellsouth.net> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 02:21:11 GMT Randy or Sherry Guttery wrote: > > > Now who looks "the fool"? > Sheeesh... Unlike our USA President, I admit my mistakes. I was a fool responding to Uncle Peters flame. He was nasty to me first. I simply was looking for intelligent answers to maybe stupid questions but answers to things I didnt know - Peter called me a troll - not true -I am just a average stupid ham trying to learn. I truly thank everyone who tried to help me - and there were many private emails. Thanx to all cept Peter. Only Peter tried to ridicule me and I apologize for taking his bait. Lazy Senior Article: 100454 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: " Uncle Peter" References: Subject: Re: Good source for Service Manuals Message-ID: Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 22:08:13 -0500 "Bob Spooner" wrote in message news:dk5c98$1cbk$1@f04n12.cac.psu.edu... > I am looking for a service manual for a rig I acquired. I've found listings > for it at the following places: > > Ham Radio Manuals by WB2JKJ - Icom Yaesu Kenwood Heathkit Drake and more! > > Amateur Radio products and equipment by rossdist.com > > Vintage Manuals, Inc. Catalog > > Manual Mall: Owners and Technical Manuals for Manufacturers JA - KX > > Has anyone had experience with any of these, and if so, which would you > recommend? > > 73, > Bob AD3K > > Bob I've had good luck with the Manual Man. www.manualman.com. Regards Pete Article: 100455 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: et472@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Black) Subject: Re: Old Xmtrs, "Ancient Modulation" and Modern Amps Date: 1 Nov 2005 03:44:40 GMT Message-ID: References: <_xs9f.500$0d.147@trnddc08> Lazy Senior (lazysenior@verizon.net) writes: > Uncle Peter wrote: > >> The BS meter is pegged. >> >> > Is that why the call you use "Peter k1zjh" is fake? From Qrz. com - The > callsign K1ZJH is not in our database. > You've missed a lot if you don't recognize his name and callsign. He had quite a number of articles in QST, including a synthesized 2meter rig in the early seventies, when synthesizers were still a new thing in the ham magazines. Lots of VHF equipment too, and in Ham Radio magazine also. Wrote for Communications Quarterly, and in recent years, has a column about antique radio in Popular Communications magazine. He's hardly a "self-styled expert". Michael VE2BVW Article: 100456 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Randy or Sherry Guttery Subject: Re: Old Xmtrs, "Ancient Modulation" and Modern Amps References: <_xs9f.500$0d.147@trnddc08> <1Hz9f.31911$ty1.14905@bignews1.bellsouth.net> Message-ID: Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 23:27:19 -0600 Lazy Senior wrote: > Unlike our USA President, I admit my mistakes. Plonk -- randy guttery A Tender Tale - a page dedicated to those Ships and Crews so vital to the United States Silent Service: http://tendertale.com Article: 100457 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Randy or Sherry Guttery Subject: Re: Old Xmtrs, "Ancient Modulation" and Amps References: <67s9f.5159$Kv.2172@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net> Message-ID: <26D9f.23096$wG.19786@bignews4.bellsouth.net> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 23:34:52 -0600 Chuck Harris wrote: > Randy or Sherry Guttery wrote: > Perhaps the newer ones (post 1980) have S-meters? > >> >> That's an interesting point - what military receivers --besides >> conversion sets -- have "S meters" (i.e. actually marked in S units)? >> >> best regards... > > > Why RT-718/FRC-93's, which are also know as KWM2A's do. Don't those count as "conversions" - i.e. civilian sets "badged" with military nomenclature? I'll try asking again... what radios designed by / for the military (as opposed to rebadged civilian sets) have carrier meters marked in S Units? David - you've got a ton of mil stuff... what has meters in S units? best regards... -- randy guttery A Tender Tale - a page dedicated to those Ships and Crews so vital to the United States Silent Service: http://tendertale.com