Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Best way to pack a HW-101 for shipment  (Read 28461 times)
W1BR
Member

Posts: 4177




Ignore
« Reply #30 on: September 21, 2014, 11:15:04 AM »

I think an 80 would be pushed in that circuit, because the reservoir capacitor is rather large. The published ratings for the 80 are for a 10 mFd reservoir. So that is probably why they went for a 5U4 - if there was a logical reason. There isn't always.....Plus the fact that the circuit suggests that there is a left hand amplifier powered from it as well

 


What is a reservoir capacitor; is that the input filter cap in an LC filter?  RCA spec'ed the tube for up to 40uF in their manuals. 10uF seems a bit small.

Pete
http://www.classiccmp.org/rtellason/tubedata/5U4-GB.PDF
Logged
G3RZP
Member

Posts: 1213




Ignore
« Reply #31 on: September 21, 2014, 01:32:06 PM »

The data sheets I found for an 80 went up only to 10mFd - yes, a reservoir capacitor is the input cap in a capacitor input filter.
Logged
W1BR
Member

Posts: 4177




Ignore
« Reply #32 on: September 21, 2014, 04:33:52 PM »

Confusion on my end, I saw a 5u4 on the schematic earlier..
Logged
G3RZP
Member

Posts: 1213




Ignore
« Reply #33 on: September 22, 2014, 02:45:55 AM »

I think they used a 5U4 because of the limitation on capacity , but someone said they could have used an 80
Logged
AD5IW
Member

Posts: 40




Ignore
« Reply #34 on: September 22, 2014, 10:28:55 AM »

Tubes are a waste, get new replacements.
If you have a local source, support them,
or http://www.rell.com/products/Electron-Tubes-Vacuum-Devices.html
I have used Richardson for 30+ years, good people and good tubes.

N8CMQ Jeff

I tested the expensive tubes - two 6hs6 (sell for $40 each) and 6gw8 (sell for $35 each).  They checked out ok.  The transmitting tubes (two 6146) seem to be working ok but not at full power yet - I still am working on the alignment.  Found a couple of cold solder joints and out-of-spec resistors so far.

I purchased spare tubes from agtannenbaum.com (local in Dallas and has 3 million tubes).  Also have purchased from vivatubes.com - very quick service and tests each tube (and posts the results with a life rating).

Logged
AD5IW
Member

Posts: 40




Ignore
« Reply #35 on: September 22, 2014, 10:55:10 AM »

This thread has wandered way off the original question of the best way to pack a HW-101. I guess the consensus for the best way to pack that rig is in a dumpster?
Anyway, I'll add to the digression about toob audio to mention that the schematic shows 2A3s, why not go all the way and use an 80 rectifier too? I mean, a 5U4 is modern technology for god's sake!  Grin

It baffles me that some people believe that 100 year old tube technology is somehow superior.


After your comment, I was wondering if I had gone nostalgic. 

So I set up a test with a solid state radio (AOR 7030plus) and my old restored hw-100.  Each was connected to a good speaker (Sweet Sounds), side by side.  I could listen to the same Russian cw station on both receivers.  Like stereo... Smiley   I alternated turning one down and then the other.  How readable was the signal?  How clear was the signal above the noise?  How pleasant was the tone?  This is a real test as the cw signal over the pole has a lot of wavering strength (with noise and dropout).

It all cases, the hw-100 sounded better and the cw was easier to understand (more readable).

How about the sensitivity?  Listening at dusk on 28.016 MHz, I could hear a New Zealand cw station ZM90DX.  It was a short band opening and signal was down in the noise, but still readable.  Flipping back and forth between the radios, there was no difference at all.  Again, the hw-100 had better audio.

I have compared the AOR 7030plus with the K2 several times.  The AOR has better selectivity, better audio, more stable and better agc than the k2.  But the k2 is equally sensitive.

Frankly I am surprised at the results.  Who knew a 40 year radio worth $150 could hold it's own against a $1500 solid state radio?
Logged
AC2EU
Member

Posts: 1464


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #36 on: September 22, 2014, 12:03:02 PM »

This thread has wandered way off the original question of the best way to pack a HW-101. I guess the consensus for the best way to pack that rig is in a dumpster?
Anyway, I'll add to the digression about toob audio to mention that the schematic shows 2A3s, why not go all the way and use an 80 rectifier too? I mean, a 5U4 is modern technology for god's sake!  Grin

It baffles me that some people believe that 100 year old tube technology is somehow superior.


After your comment, I was wondering if I had gone nostalgic. 

So I set up a test with a solid state radio (AOR 7030plus) and my old restored hw-100.  Each was connected to a good speaker (Sweet Sounds), side by side.  I could listen to the same Russian cw station on both receivers.  Like stereo... Smiley   I alternated turning one down and then the other.  How readable was the signal?  How clear was the signal above the noise?  How pleasant was the tone?  This is a real test as the cw signal over the pole has a lot of wavering strength (with noise and dropout).

It all cases, the hw-100 sounded better and the cw was easier to understand (more readable).

How about the sensitivity?  Listening at dusk on 28.016 MHz, I could hear a New Zealand cw station ZM90DX.  It was a short band opening and signal was down in the noise, but still readable.  Flipping back and forth between the radios, there was no difference at all.  Again, the hw-100 had better audio.

I have compared the AOR 7030plus with the K2 several times.  The AOR has better selectivity, better audio, more stable and better agc than the k2.  But the k2 is equally sensitive.

Frankly I am surprised at the results.  Who knew a 40 year radio worth $150 could hold it's own against a $1500 solid state radio?

It goes to show that beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder.
I could be that sharing the antenna was detrimental to the other radio, plus I know nothing about thet AOR to comment.
People like me shouldn't be throwing stones anyway. Sometimes I run ARC=5 s!!!  Shocked
I run them for the fact that they are funky, old , but still work . However, I am NOT going to compare them to my new Yaesu stuff
Logged

G3RZP
Member

Posts: 1213




Ignore
« Reply #37 on: September 22, 2014, 11:01:32 PM »

It does show that you do not have to have the latest expensive YaeKenComcraft radio to be able to hear and work DX. So there are few or even no bells and whistles: probably the biggest fault with old transceivers is the inability to work split and even that can be arranged.

Many of them are not good on CW: generally, I am convinced that much of that comes from the fact that very few rig designers (even today) actually operate CW seriously, if at all.

I would expect that a Johnson Valiant and an SX101 with a decent antenna would still easily give one a good DXCC score on CW.....
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!