4 radios I got today

Loading Image...

Channel Jumper

2013-12-27 02:47:53 UTC

;813324']http://tinyurl.com/pn3ekf

OK - so what are you going to do with them

AM is practically dead, other then talk radio

FM is practically on the way out - with XM and other delivery service
being incorporated into most new vehicles and given free with most dis
type services

The Knight Kit is interesting - Looks like a old R-100, but if it is
then it only does AM, you will be limited to what ever AM operators yo
can find. Mostly they hang out on 80 and 160 meters and they don'
operate every day and you will need a long wire antenna to receive the
- so a urban setting is a must

Maybe you can check out the Knight Kit fan club web site

http://www.mequonsteve.com/knight-kit

I don't believe that your receiver goes beyond 80 meters, but I have no
seen that model in 30 years so I am not sure. Maybe you could hav
posted a description of each item instead of just a picture

--
Channel Jumper

Geoffrey S. Mendelson

2013-12-27 05:39:21 UTC

You can easily buy a box that plays audio from another source on an FM
radio. A long time ago you could get them for AM radios.

I expect that you will be able to buy a kit, or someone will put them in
a fancy box and sell them to collectors of old radios. That way you can
listen to modern sources of entertainment on your old radio. :-)

I have even seen on a youtube video where someone in the UK built a
device to take PAL video (625line 50Hz) and convert it to 425 line 50Hz
RF needed by old British TV's.

Now that NTSC and PAL TV's are no longer able to pick up off the air
broadcasts, I'm sure someone will market something.

How else will all those people with rooms full of radios and TVs have
anything to show them with?

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, N3OWJ/4X1GM/KBUH7245/KBUW5379

philo

2013-12-27 13:09:35 UTC

Post by Geoffrey S. Mendelson

You can easily buy a box that plays audio from another source on an FM
radio. A long time ago you could get them for AM radios.
I expect that you will be able to buy a kit, or someone will put them in
a fancy box and sell them to collectors of old radios. That way you can
listen to modern sources of entertainment on your old radio. :-)
I have even seen on a youtube video where someone in the UK built a
device to take PAL video (625line 50Hz) and convert it to 425 line 50Hz
RF needed by old British TV's.
Now that NTSC and PAL TV's are no longer able to pick up off the air
broadcasts, I'm sure someone will market something.
How else will all those people with rooms full of radios and TVs have
anything to show them with?
Geoff.

Actually, for AM there is a radio station in town that plays nothing but
old classics , so I do not even have to build a transmitter.

philo

2013-12-27 13:07:16 UTC

;813324']http://tinyurl.com/pn3ekfg

OK - so what are you going to do with them?
AM is practically dead, other then talk radio.
FM is practically on the way out - with XM and other delivery services
being incorporated into most new vehicles and given free with most dish
type services.
The Knight Kit is interesting - Looks like a old R-100, but if it is,
then it only does AM, you will be limited to what ever AM operators you
can find. Mostly they hang out on 80 and 160 meters and they don't
operate every day and you will need a long wire antenna to receive them
- so a urban setting is a must.
Maybe you can check out the Knight Kit fan club web site.
http://www.mequonsteve.com/knight-kit/
I don't believe that your receiver goes beyond 80 meters, but I have not
seen that model in 30 years so I am not sure. Maybe you could have
posted a description of each item instead of just a picture.

I plan to repair the radios as a winter project and sell them at cost.
Collectors do not care if a radio is AM only. They turn it one once to
confirm that it works, then use it as a display item.

That said, some of them have short wave and the R-100 (from 1957) indeed
was a communications receiver that went the standard 80-10 meters and it
does have a BFO. I confirmed that it at least works on the AM band...but
the first thing I will do is re-cap it.

Michael Black

2013-12-27 17:55:43 UTC

;813324']http://tinyurl.com/pn3ekfg

OK - so what are you going to do with them?

A collection is a collection. You collect them because they are cheap, or
maybe because you lusted after them once upon a time but were too
expensive, and now you either have the money, or they are available at a
much lower cost.

I didn't really start collecting, but over the past few years I've picked
up a good number of solid state shortwave receivers. And of course that
$20 GPR-90. They were cheap, I didn't need them since I had bought a new
Grundig a few years back. But since they present themselves, and except
for the Grundig Satellite 500 at $40 they have all been ten dollars or
less (that Grundig Satellite 700 was $2.00), I might as well buy them, I'm
likely the only one passing by that day who'd be interested. None of
these are anything I lusted after, but I keep hoping. WIth all the Radio
Shack DX-160s sold, surely I'll stumble upon one one of these days.

AM is practically dead, other then talk radio. >

And that makes sense, with FM available, why use AM for music? There are
still some stations that put local hosts on overnight, and at night is the
time you have a chance to hear distant stations.

FM is practically on the way out - with XM and other delivery services
being incorporated into most new vehicles and given free with most dish
type services.

And pay a monthly fee.

I think it odd that a lot of MP3 players come with an FM receiver, and
actually the one in mine is pretty good.

The Knight Kit is interesting - Looks like a old R-100, but if it is,
then it only does AM, you will be limited to what ever AM operators you
can find. Mostly they hang out on 80 and 160 meters and they don't
operate every day and you will need a long wire antenna to receive them
- so a urban setting is a must.

No, all you have to do is turn down the RF gain, turn up the audio volume
to compensate, and you will hear SSB. It's not like it didn't have a BFO,
only consumer radios of that era lacked a BFO.

Michael VE2BVW

Scott Dorsey

2013-12-27 19:04:28 UTC

Post by Michael Black
No, all you have to do is turn down the RF gain, turn up the audio volume
to compensate, and you will hear SSB. It's not like it didn't have a BFO,
only consumer radios of that era lacked a BFO.

And adding a BFO was no big deal... sneak a 6C5 into the series string of
an AA5 rigged up as a 455kc oscillator, take some turns off the loopstick
and you're listening to all the CW on 80M!

Mind you, with the limited IF filtering of an AA5, you're listening to half
the CW on 80M at the same time but that could be a good thing if you were a
rockbound novice and were frequently working inadvertent splits.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Michael Black

2013-12-27 20:06:26 UTC

Post by Scott Dorsey

And adding a BFO was no big deal... sneak a 6C5 into the series string of
an AA5 rigged up as a 455kc oscillator, take some turns off the loopstick
and you're listening to all the CW on 80M!
Mind you, with the limited IF filtering of an AA5, you're listening to half
the CW on 80M at the same time but that could be a good thing if you were a
rockbound novice and were frequently working inadvertent splits.

By "consumer radio" I was thinking of the old table radio in the living
room that happened to have some shortwave bands. Or later, transistor
portables intended for that same sort of market. Hallicrafters even made
some, a sleeker cabinet and in some cases the FM band, something to keep
in the den.

Even the cheapest shortwave receiver for the hobbyist had a BFO, even if
it was in the form of a regenerative IF stage (like one of the S38 models)
or via a q-multiplier. Even my Hallicrafters S-120A in 1971 had a BFO,
though one so weak that it was only good for CW; I somehow realized that
if I attenuated the incoming signals I could receive SSB. So I put a
potentiometer between the antenna and the antenna terminals, and I could
receive SSB, though by the time the signals were attenuated enough for
the BFO to be strong enough, not many signals were strong enough.

The R-100 probably wasn't much to write home about, but it was intended
for that same market, and had a BFO. Of course, right at that point, it
would have been for CW since SSB was just starting to grow. Most of the
classic boatanchor receivers suffer the same, unless they were amateur
band only receivers after a certain point. It always strikes me as a
surprise that the R390 or the R388 or even the later 75A series didn't
include product detectors.

Michael VE2BVW

philo

2013-12-27 23:54:34 UTC

Post by Michael Black
Even the cheapest shortwave receiver for the hobbyist had a BFO, even if
it was in the form of a regenerative IF stage (like one of the S38
models) or via a q-multiplier. Even my Hallicrafters S-120A in 1971 had
a BFO, though one so weak that it was only good for CW; I somehow
realized that if I attenuated the incoming signals I could receive SSB.
So I put a potentiometer between the antenna and the antenna terminals,
and I could receive SSB, though by the time the signals were attenuated
enough for
the BFO to be strong enough, not many signals were strong enough.
The R-100 probably wasn't much to write home about, but it was intended
for that same market, and had a BFO. Of course, right at that point, it
would have been for CW since SSB was just starting to grow. Most of the
classic boatanchor receivers suffer the same, unless they were amateur
band only receivers after a certain point. It always strikes me as a
surprise that the R390 or the R388 or even the later 75A series didn't
include product detectors.
Michael VE2BVW

I have an HQ-140-X that was made in 1950, so the BFO was definitely
designed with SSB in mind...but it works just fine for it

sctvguy1

2013-12-28 03:53:48 UTC

Post by philoÂ
I have an HQ-140-X that was made in 1950, so the BFO was definitely
designed with SSB in mind...but it works just fine for it

I have a like-new Lafayette HE-10 that will pick up SSB with its BFO. It
is an 8 tube beauty, like a giant S-38. Got if from the original owner.
It is now my only boatanchor left.

philo

2013-12-28 13:03:58 UTC

Post by sctvguy1

Post by philoÂ
I have an HQ-140-X that was made in 1950, so the BFO was definitely
designed with SSB in mind...but it works just fine for it

I have a like-new Lafayette HE-10 that will pick up SSB with its BFO. It
is an 8 tube beauty, like a giant S-38. Got if from the original owner.
It is now my only boatanchor left.

Yep, I remember those, some day I'll have to see if I have any Lafayette
catalogs left...so far all I have found is a 1970 Allied.

Kind of an interesting year as they stocked vacuum tubes, transistors
and IC's.

Michael Black

2013-12-28 16:20:34 UTC

Post by philoÂ
Yep, I remember those, some day I'll have to see if I have any Lafayette
catalogs left...so far all I have found is a 1970 Allied.
Kind of an interesting year as they stocked vacuum tubes, transistors and
IC's.

Someone was scanning old catalogs, and putting them online. I don't have
a URL handy. I know there were Radio Shack catalogs (I think a good
selection, so likely going back to the time before there was a store on
every corner). But I think there, or somewhere else, there were at least
some Lafayette catalogs online.

Someone wrote about Lafayette in Monitoring Times a year or so agon, and
he put the article online. Again, I don't have the URL.

I think I only had one Lafayette catolog, me having no money and Lafayette
in the US. And at least one Olson Electronic catalog. And for some
reason, I never kept them. Too young to think they were worth keeping I
guess, thinking I could always get another one when needed, not thinking
about the historical value, or that the companies might just close up.

The only catalog I still have from the early seventies is an Etco
Electronic catalog, a local place that later did mail order in the US.
And even that is missing the cover, and a few of the outer pages,
reflecting how much I looked at it at the time. I had other Etco
catalogs, but for some reason, I didn't keep them.

I didn't even keep my first ARRL Handbook, from 1971. I got other
editions in the next few years, and since they change glacially, decided I
could afford to give the 71 one away. The cover was ripped, it had solder
burns on the pages, it was in bad shape when I gave it away.

And then, at some used book sale about a decade ago, I saw another 1971
Handbook, selling for 20cents or so. It's in better shape than the copy I
gave away in the seventies.

I've only found 1 or 2 other Handbooks at used book sales, so it's a real
surprise that I found the 1971 Handbook. And oddly, when I find a book
related to amateur radio, there's only one book. I'd expect a collection,
even a small one, but instead one appears at one sale, another at some
other sale, not that it's a common occurence. I found a stray "Course in
Radio Fundamentals" at some garage sale, another book I gave away for some
reason, or maybe I never had it.

Michael VE2BVW

philo

2013-12-28 16:25:47 UTC

Post by Michael Black
The only catalog I still have from the early seventies is an Etco
Electronic catalog, a local place that later did mail order in the US.
And even that is missing the cover, and a few of the outer pages,
reflecting how much I looked at it at the time. I had other Etco
catalogs, but for some reason, I didn't keep them.
I didn't even keep my first ARRL Handbook, from 1971. I got other
editions in the next few years, and since they change glacially, decided
I could afford to give the 71 one away. The cover was ripped, it had
solder burns on the pages, it was in bad shape when I gave it away.
And then, at some used book sale about a decade ago, I saw another 1971
Handbook, selling for 20cents or so. It's in better shape than the copy
I gave away in the seventies.
I've only found 1 or 2 other Handbooks at used book sales, so it's a
real surprise that I found the 1971 Handbook. And oddly, when I find a
book related to amateur radio, there's only one book. I'd expect a
collection, even a small one, but instead one appears at one sale,
another at some other sale, not that it's a common occurence. I found a
stray "Course in Radio Fundamentals" at some garage sale, another book I
gave away for some reason, or maybe I never had it.
Michael VE2BVW

Though I threw out most of my old catalogs whenever I got a new
one...but I always kept my ARRL Handbook (1964)

Years later there was a book store in town that eventually figured out
that the very old electronics books were valuable antiques...but I
picked up a lot of them dirt cheap a few years before the owner realized
they could be valuable...so I now have a 1932 and a 1949 ARRL Handbook
along with some much older text books.

Michael Black

2013-12-28 17:59:20 UTC

Though I threw out most of my old catalogs whenever I got a new one...but I
always kept my ARRL Handbook (1964)
Years later there was a book store in town that eventually figured out that
the very old electronics books were valuable antiques...but I picked up a lot
of them dirt cheap a few years before the owner realized they could be
valuable...so I now have a 1932 and a 1949 ARRL Handbook along with some much
older text books.

A relative once found a 1961 Handbook at a used book sale, that was a nice
Christmas present decades ago, the earliest one I have, though I admit I
never went out of the way to seek them out.

I paid $2 for my fourth edition Radiotron Designer's Handbook about 1995,
at the biggest local used book sale. I just stumbled on it, for some
reason looking in a section I wouldn't have normall checked. And so the
next year I got some even older technical books, one about telephones and
another a compendium of articles about tv and one of Terman's books, all
for about the same price. One even had pencilled in under the price
"dated material".

That same book sale has taken a dive in recent years, discarding before
the sale, trying to streamline it and thus raise prices. It was a great
sale for decades because they had the longest collection period, and you
never knew what you might find. I'd buy any hobby electronic book I
found, not that they were common. But with the streamlining, that sort of
thing is missing. But too often the books have "internet price:" to
justify the higher prices. Yes, if you were buying off the internet, but
we are buying at a book sale.

Michael

Myron A. Calhoun

2013-12-30 22:09:06 UTC

....[snip]....
I didn't even keep my first ARRL Handbook, from 1971. I got other
....[snip]....
And then, at some used book sale about a decade ago, I saw another
1971Handbook, selling for 20 cents or so. It's in better shape than
....[snip]....
I've only found 1 or 2 other Handbooks at used book sales, so it's a
real surprise that I found the 1971 Handbook. And oddly, when I find
....[snip]....

I attend one hamfest each year (in Salina, KS, about an hour away) and
see several ARRL handbooks almost every time, but I don't recall ever
paying more than a buck for one. I currently have HAM "bibles" for:
1942, 44, 45, 46, 47, 52, 54, 55, 59, 60, 62, 63, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72,
73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 81, 82, 83, 85, 89, 91, 95, and 2010.

--
-- Myron A. Calhoun.
Five boxes preserve our freedoms: soap, ballot, witness, jury, and cartridge
NRA Life Member & Certified Instructor for Rifle, Pistol, & Home Firearm Safety

gareth

2013-12-31 09:57:22 UTC

Post by Myron A. Calhoun

I attend one hamfest each year (in Salina, KS, about an hour away) and
see several ARRL handbooks almost every time, but I don't recall ever
1942, 44, 45, 46, 47, 52, 54, 55, 59, 60, 62, 63, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72,
73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 81, 82, 83, 85, 89, 91, 95, and 2010.

I'll call your ARRL handbooks, and raise you one "Admiralty Handbook of
Wireless Telegraphy" dated 1920, obtained yesterday at an SK sale near
Bristol.

(Poulsen Arcs, anyone?)

It is poignant to be sorting through the remains of another Ham's shack, and
I felt
almost intrusive in doing so.

Even sadder is that the deceased, at the age of 90+, was one of the breed of
real (by which I mean technically motivated) radio hams.

Scott Dorsey

2014-01-01 13:26:03 UTC

Post by Michael Black
The R-100 probably wasn't much to write home about, but it was intended
for that same market, and had a BFO. Of course, right at that point, it
would have been for CW since SSB was just starting to grow. Most of the
classic boatanchor receivers suffer the same, unless they were amateur
band only receivers after a certain point. It always strikes me as a
surprise that the R390 or the R388 or even the later 75A series didn't
include product detectors.

They didn't, in part because when they were being designed, SSB was really
not yet being adopted and few people really thought the product detector
was of much use for AM. Remember the approval process for military gear
slows down develoment quite a bit.

That said, there were plenty of aftermarket product detectors for the
R-390. I have a homebrew one myself using a sheet-beam tube intended for
color TV chroma detectors and it makes weak signal SSB better. On AM, it
makes fading signals more pleasant to listen to, but it does not improve
intelligibility any and those machines were workhorses intended for weak
signal work rather than pleasant listening.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Michael Black

2014-01-01 22:47:10 UTC

Post by Scott Dorsey

I know the reasoning. I'm sure if I had lived through the period, I'd
think less of no product detector. But in the context of the seventies
and later, when they were still fairly top of the line receivers, it did
seem odd.

I'm still trying to grasp what the TMC GPR-90 was for. TMC was generally
aimed at a professional market (the ads in QST seemed more about hoping to
influence hams who worked in the industry). It's a general coverage
receiver, but it has ham band bandspread. I even wondered if they hoped
for big sales with the FCC for monitoring the ham bands. And no product
detctor either.

Post by Scott Dorsey
That said, there were plenty of aftermarket product detectors for the
R-390. I have a homebrew one myself using a sheet-beam tube intended for
color TV chroma detectors and it makes weak signal SSB better. On AM, it
makes fading signals more pleasant to listen to, but it does not improve
intelligibility any and those machines were workhorses intended for weak
signal work rather than pleasant listening.

And of course, some had pretty fancy external units. Hammarlund and TMC,
practically receivers in themselves. If you were buying the TMC for
professional use, if you needed full SSB reception, the cost of the
adapter wasn't a problem.

Once I get the GPR-90 going (it seems in perfect shape, but I have to go
digging to find a new rectifier and fuseholder, at the minimum), it might
make sense to go with making something like their external SSB adapter.
Use that 250KHz mechanical filter that really isn't useful except if I put
it ahead of a converter, or maybe those 85KHz IF transformers from the
Command Set, that look like new replacements. Those fancier adapters
converting to another IF have the advantage of adding narrower filtering
at the lower IF, but also they have a very fine tuning control on the
oscillator converting to the lower IF.

Michael

Geoffrey S. Mendelson

2014-01-02 05:44:17 UTC

Post by Michael Black
I'm still trying to grasp what the TMC GPR-90 was for. TMC was generally
aimed at a professional market (the ads in QST seemed more about hoping to
influence hams who worked in the industry). It's a general coverage
receiver, but it has ham band bandspread. I even wondered if they hoped
for big sales with the FCC for monitoring the ham bands. And no product
detctor either.

It's hard to look back and figure out why someone would buy something,
especially a government agency, when we really don't have a clue of
what was really going on at the time.

For example, although we all think of the red telephone as the hotline
between Moscow and Washington, (it was really a TTY link), it did
not exist in 1962, and the Cuban Missile Crisis was negotiated via the
VOA and Radio Moscow.

So we really don't know what, or why, or even whom was listening.

There was for many years lots of activity outside of the 80m ham band
(which ends at 3.850) and the 40 meter ham band (which ended at 7.100)
in Europe, Africa and Asia.

There was also lots of UTE (utillity, presumed to be shipping, etc)
traffic just above 4mHz and just below the 6mHz and 7mHz SWBC bands,
so they could monitor there and the receiver would look like a ham receiver
to US hams.

And of course, there was the belief that any numbers station that was not
in English was the Mossad (Israeli intelligence service), that it became
a running joke. Look at the SWL magazines from the past, and numbers
stations were always listed as belonging to the Mossad.

While I am not even sure there were many, or any of them opperated by the
Mossad, there certainly were plenty of them. At the time Kol Yisrael
(the voice of Israel) had 24/7 SWBC programs and could slip messages
in them and never be noticed.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, N3OWJ/4X1GM/KBUH7245/KBUW5379

Scott Dorsey

2014-01-02 15:11:58 UTC

TMC pretty much sold to the military, and they made a number of excellent
general coverage HF receivers for military use.

I think the GPR-90 was one of their existing military models, with ham band
bandspread tuning added to it as an afterthought in an attempt to capture
some of the higher end ham market. I have never used one of the things,
although I have used a bunch of their VHF/UHF sets from the sixties.

Post by Michael Black
Once I get the GPR-90 going (it seems in perfect shape, but I have to go
digging to find a new rectifier and fuseholder, at the minimum), it might
make sense to go with making something like their external SSB adapter.
Use that 250KHz mechanical filter that really isn't useful except if I put
it ahead of a converter, or maybe those 85KHz IF transformers from the
Command Set, that look like new replacements. Those fancier adapters
converting to another IF have the advantage of adding narrower filtering
at the lower IF, but also they have a very fine tuning control on the
oscillator converting to the lower IF.

I keep meaning to write up my article on the sheet beam detector... it is
really pretty much cobbled together from a QST article but altered to use
a cheap consumer sheet-beam tube instead of the expensive unavailable one.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Geoffrey S. Mendelson

2013-12-28 21:14:17 UTC

Post by Michael Black
I think it odd that a lot of MP3 players come with an FM receiver, and
actually the one in mine is pretty good.

It's the same reason AM is dying. The background RF noise generated by the
electronics in the player makes MW reception impossible.

Now think about the combination of all the noise from computers, monitors,
LED/LCD TV's, pocket entertainment devices, iPods/Pads/Phone, similar
android devices, xDSL lines, just about anything with a microprocessor
in it, and CFLs.

Since in most of the world, 80% of the population is in clumps which
cover 20% of the land mass, there is a lot of noise in one place.

For a few years I lived on the edge of a nature preserve, and I had a
shielded loop antenna outside of the "noise cloud" from all the houses on
my street. It was connected to the special loop input of a Drake SPR-4.

I was able to receive the BBC's AM station on 648kHz on a good night,
around 3,000 miles. Even on a bad night the dial was full of stations.

About 2m closer to our house and there was too much noise to hear anything.

Now I no longer live there, the station is gone, and like the rest of
the people in a big city, I have no AM reception.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, N3OWJ/4X1GM/KBUH7245/KBUW5379

Tim Wescott

2013-12-31 22:08:08 UTC

;813324']http://tinyurl.com/pn3ekfg

OK - so what are you going to do with them?

There's something ironic about a comment on a boatanchors group
denigrating a radio for being obsolete.

If it were cutting edge, it wouldn't _be_ a boatanchor!

--
Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

philo

2014-01-01 14:08:59 UTC

Post by Tim Wescott

;813324']http://tinyurl.com/pn3ekfg

OK - so what are you going to do with them?

There's something ironic about a comment on a boatanchors group
denigrating a radio for being obsolete.
If it were cutting edge, it wouldn't _be_ a boatanchor!

Correct, that's the whole point of this group

Jerry Stuckle

2013-12-27 03:25:26 UTC

Post by philoÂ
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1496322_746198695407502_474381396_o.jpg

Looks like a good find! What kind of shape are the innards in? Pretty
good, or a lot of work to get going?

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K
***@attglobal.net
==================

philo

2013-12-27 13:12:26 UTC

Post by philoÂ
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1496322_746198695407502_474381396_o.jpg

Looks like a good find! What kind of shape are the innards in? Pretty
good, or a lot of work to get going?

So far I have not tested the Bakelite radio but the guy I got it from
said it was working.

The R-100 will need some work but basically it does function,
the other two will need work. One had the oscillator coil
removed...though it was included, I assume it to be bad.
I have not looked through my junk box yet...

This will be a winter project and now that I'm retired I don't care of
it takes me 20 years to restore them.

Jerry Stuckle

2013-12-27 13:53:51 UTC

Post by philoÂ
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1496322_746198695407502_474381396_o.jpg

Looks like a good find! What kind of shape are the innards in? Pretty
good, or a lot of work to get going?

So far I have not tested the Bakelite radio but the guy I got it from
said it was working.
The R-100 will need some work but basically it does function,
the other two will need work. One had the oscillator coil
removed...though it was included, I assume it to be bad.
I have not looked through my junk box yet...
This will be a winter project and now that I'm retired I don't care of
it takes me 20 years to restore them.

LOL, sounds like a good winter-time project. I'm envious - I wish I had
time to do similar things. I really enjoy restoring old gear.

I'd love to find an old Atwater Kent with the cabinet in decent
condition and the electronics repairable. It would go well with the
Edison cylinder phonograph and other antiques in our living room.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K
***@attglobal.net
==================

philo

2013-12-27 14:04:53 UTC

Post by philoÂ
This will be a winter project and now that I'm retired I don't care of
it takes me 20 years to restore them.

LOL, sounds like a good winter-time project. I'm envious - I wish I had
time to do similar things. I really enjoy restoring old gear.
I'd love to find an old Atwater Kent with the cabinet in decent
condition and the electronics repairable. It would go well with the
Edison cylinder phonograph and other antiques in our living room.

Since my last post I did test the Bakelite set and it works.

Will need dial lights and re-capping.

Since you mentioned Atwater Kent I am now reminded that I need to find a
replacement audio transformer for mine.

Michael Black

2013-12-27 17:48:27 UTC

Post by philoÂ
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1496322_746198695407502_474381396_o.jpg

Looks like a good find! What kind of shape are the innards in? Pretty
good, or a lot of work to get going?

So far I have not tested the Bakelite radio but the guy I got it from said it
was working.
The R-100 will need some work but basically it does function,
the other two will need work. One had the oscillator coil removed...though it
was included, I assume it to be bad.
I have not looked through my junk box yet...

I think it wsa the R-100 that was featured in a QST construction articel
from about 1958.

The author bought the Knight Kit after proper planning, and proceeded to
use the coils and chassis to build a better receiver. DOuble conversion
I'm sure, I can't remember what else. So instead of building the kit and
then modifying it, or adding things like converters, he built it up the
way he wanted it.

The article definitely used a Knight Kit, but it may have been the next
model in that receiver line, I'm not sure.

Michael VE2BVW

This will be a winter project and now that I'm retired I don't care of it
takes me 20 years to restore them.

philo

2013-12-27 23:56:09 UTC

Post by philoÂ
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1496322_746198695407502_474381396_o.jpg

Looks like a good find! What kind of shape are the innards in? Pretty
good, or a lot of work to get going?

So far I have not tested the Bakelite radio but the guy I got it from
said it was working.
The R-100 will need some work but basically it does function,
the other two will need work. One had the oscillator coil
removed...though it was included, I assume it to be bad.
I have not looked through my junk box yet...

I think it wsa the R-100 that was featured in a QST construction articel
from about 1958.
The author bought the Knight Kit after proper planning, and proceeded to
use the coils and chassis to build a better receiver. DOuble conversion
I'm sure, I can't remember what else. So instead of building the kit
and then modifying it, or adding things like converters, he built it up
the way he wanted it.
The article definitely used a Knight Kit, but it may have been the next
model in that receiver line, I'm not sure.
Michael VE2BVW

Post by philoÂ
This will be a winter project and now that I'm retired I don't care of
it takes me 20 years to restore them.

I am going to try to get it as original as possible and see what I can
do with it. However, back at the time , turning it into a dual
conversion rcvr would have been a great idea.

Michael Black

2013-12-28 00:24:30 UTC

Post by philoÂ
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1496322_746198695407502_474381396_o.jpg

Looks like a good find! What kind of shape are the innards in? Pretty
good, or a lot of work to get going?

So far I have not tested the Bakelite radio but the guy I got it from
said it was working.
The R-100 will need some work but basically it does function,
the other two will need work. One had the oscillator coil
removed...though it was included, I assume it to be bad.
I have not looked through my junk box yet...

I think it wsa the R-100 that was featured in a QST construction articel
from about 1958.
The author bought the Knight Kit after proper planning, and proceeded to
use the coils and chassis to build a better receiver. DOuble conversion
I'm sure, I can't remember what else. So instead of building the kit
and then modifying it, or adding things like converters, he built it up
the way he wanted it.
The article definitely used a Knight Kit, but it may have been the next
model in that receiver line, I'm not sure.
Michael VE2BVW

Post by philoÂ
This will be a winter project and now that I'm retired I don't care of
it takes me 20 years to restore them.

I am going to try to get it as original as possible and see what I can do
with it. However, back at the time , turning it into a dual conversion rcvr
would have been a great idea.

I wasn't suggesting you modify it, just pointing out an interesting bit of
history. I didn't see the article till the early seventies, but it alway
struck me as an interesting idea. On one hand, it's shocking "you buy a
kit and then don't build it the way it's intended?" but it's also a great
way of getting the metalwork done. A lot of people didn't have the
metalworking tools, or the space to do it. It's not like today when you
can build on copper circuit board.

Michael

philo

2013-12-28 00:50:18 UTC

Post by Michael Black
X.

Post by Michael Black
The author bought the Knight Kit after proper planning, and proceeded to
use the coils and chassis to build a better receiver. DOuble conversion
I'm sure, I can't remember what else. So instead of building the kit
and then modifying it, or adding things like converters, he built it up
the way he wanted it.
The article definitely used a Knight Kit, but it may have been the next
model in that receiver line, I'm not sure.
Michael VE2BVW

Post by philoÂ
This will be a winter project and now that I'm retired I don't care of
it takes me 20 years to restore them.

I am going to try to get it as original as possible and see what I can
do with it. However, back at the time , turning it into a dual
conversion rcvr would have been a great idea.

I wasn't suggesting you modify it, just pointing out an interesting bit
of history. I didn't see the article till the early seventies, but it
alway struck me as an interesting idea. On one hand, it's shocking "you
buy a kit and then don't build it the way it's intended?" but it's also
a great way of getting the metalwork done. A lot of people didn't have
the metalworking tools, or the space to do it. It's not like today when
you can build on copper circuit board.

Metalwork.

I recall using a nibbling tool, I still have one.

I also recall the day my father bought a Black and Decker 1/4" power
drill and retired my hand drill!

50 years later that drill is still working.

Jerry Stuckle

2013-12-28 01:13:28 UTC

Post by philoÂ
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1496322_746198695407502_474381396_o.jpg

Looks like a good find! What kind of shape are the innards in?
Pretty
good, or a lot of work to get going?

So far I have not tested the Bakelite radio but the guy I got it from
said it was working.
The R-100 will need some work but basically it does function,
the other two will need work. One had the oscillator coil
removed...though it was included, I assume it to be bad.
I have not looked through my junk box yet...

I think it wsa the R-100 that was featured in a QST construction articel
from about 1958.
The author bought the Knight Kit after proper planning, and proceeded to
use the coils and chassis to build a better receiver. DOuble conversion
I'm sure, I can't remember what else. So instead of building the kit
and then modifying it, or adding things like converters, he built it up
the way he wanted it.
The article definitely used a Knight Kit, but it may have been the next
model in that receiver line, I'm not sure.
Michael VE2BVW

Post by philoÂ
This will be a winter project and now that I'm retired I don't care of
it takes me 20 years to restore them.

I am going to try to get it as original as possible and see what I can
do with it. However, back at the time , turning it into a dual
conversion rcvr would have been a great idea.

I wasn't suggesting you modify it, just pointing out an interesting bit
of history. I didn't see the article till the early seventies, but it
alway struck me as an interesting idea. On one hand, it's shocking "you
buy a kit and then don't build it the way it's intended?" but it's also
a great way of getting the metalwork done. A lot of people didn't have
the metalworking tools, or the space to do it. It's not like today when
you can build on copper circuit board.
Michael

I remember back in the early 70's, a friend of mine (Extra class ham and
Senior in EE) built a receiver from the ARRL Handbook. He cut the holes
for the tube sockets (I had a set of hole punches also), installed all
of the fixed pieces (tubes, transformers, etc.).

He then wired it to look very neat. When a wire had to go from the
front of the chassis to the rear, he took it to the nearest side, routed
it to the side of the chassis, then to the rear, then over to the
closest point to the destination.

When he was done, he completed everything by lacing all the wires along
the sides together (anyone remember how to hand lace any more?). He had
a very neat looking assembly.

The result was disastrous. The receiver oscillated and all kinds of
junk. He tore out all of his lacing and rerouted the wires to the
shortest route. A little troubleshooting and the receiver worked perfectly.

This was an Extra Class amateur (back when the FCC was giving the exams)
and a senior in EE at a decent engineering school?

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
***@attglobal.net
==================

philo

2013-12-28 12:40:42 UTC

Post by Jerry Stuckle
I remember back in the early 70's, a friend of mine (Extra class ham and
Senior in EE) built a receiver from the ARRL Handbook. He cut the holes
for the tube sockets (I had a set of hole punches also), installed all
of the fixed pieces (tubes, transformers, etc.).
He then wired it to look very neat. When a wire had to go from the
front of the chassis to the rear, he took it to the nearest side, routed
it to the side of the chassis, then to the rear, then over to the
closest point to the destination.
When he was done, he completed everything by lacing all the wires along
the sides together (anyone remember how to hand lace any more?). He had
a very neat looking assembly.
The result was disastrous. The receiver oscillated and all kinds of
junk. He tore out all of his lacing and rerouted the wires to the
shortest route. A little troubleshooting and the receiver worked perfectly.
This was an Extra Class amateur (back when the FCC was giving the exams)
and a senior in EE at a decent engineering school?

Back in high school I had a friend who made a complete mess of
everything he built...he even just used line cord to feed his dipole.

Yep, everything worked absolutely great!

Jerry Stuckle

2013-12-28 15:20:11 UTC

Back in high school I had a friend who made a complete mess of
everything he built...he even just used line cord to feed his dipole.
Yep, everything worked absolutely great!

Nothing wrong with a line cord dipole. The insulation doesn't affect
radiation, and keeps it from shorting out on things like wet leaves if
you run it through a tree. And 16 gauge should handle a KW (although
I've never tried it - I would prefer 14 gauge or bigger). And the
multiple strands will improve skin effect conductivity.

The only problem would be the lack of strength, but it should be ok as
long as you have the center supported.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K
***@attglobal.net
==================

philo

2013-12-28 16:22:10 UTC

Post by philoÂ
Back in high school I had a friend who made a complete mess of
everything he built...he even just used line cord to feed his dipole.
Yep, everything worked absolutely great!

Nothing wrong with a line cord dipole. The insulation doesn't affect
radiation, and keeps it from shorting out on things like wet leaves if
you run it through a tree. And 16 gauge should handle a KW (although
I've never tried it - I would prefer 14 gauge or bigger). And the
multiple strands will improve skin effect conductivity.
The only problem would be the lack of strength, but it should be ok as
long as you have the center supported.

Most of us used coax but since the line cord worked fine I guess the
coax was not necessary.

Jerry Stuckle

2013-12-28 16:33:44 UTC

Post by philoÂ
Back in high school I had a friend who made a complete mess of
everything he built...he even just used line cord to feed his dipole.
Yep, everything worked absolutely great!

Nothing wrong with a line cord dipole. The insulation doesn't affect
radiation, and keeps it from shorting out on things like wet leaves if
you run it through a tree. And 16 gauge should handle a KW (although
I've never tried it - I would prefer 14 gauge or bigger). And the
multiple strands will improve skin effect conductivity.
The only problem would be the lack of strength, but it should be ok as
long as you have the center supported.

Most of us used coax but since the line cord worked fine I guess the
coax was not necessary.

Ah, I miss read it and thought you were taking about the dipole itself
(which I have done). Actually zip cord is just twin-lead. Impedance is
around 72 ohms or so, IIRC. Should work fine.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K
***@attglobal.net
==================

philo

2013-12-28 16:41:12 UTC

Post by philoÂ
Most of us used coax but since the line cord worked fine I guess the
coax was not necessary.

Ah, I miss read it and thought you were taking about the dipole itself
(which I have done). Actually zip cord is just twin-lead. Impedance is
around 72 ohms or so, IIRC. Should work fine.

Yes just simple twin lead ...the guy knew how to do things on a budget.

Now I apply those skills to computer repair etc. I very often make due
with the parts I have rather than go out and buy stuff.

Bill M

2013-12-28 22:58:03 UTC

Post by philoÂ
Now I apply those skills to computer repair etc. I very often make due
with the parts I have rather than go out and buy stuff.

That's why they invented friction tape. Uh well, that and hockey
sticks. eh?

-Bill

philo

2013-12-29 13:47:12 UTC

Post by Bill M

Post by philoÂ
Now I apply those skills to computer repair etc. I very often make due
with the parts I have rather than go out and buy stuff.

That's why they invented friction tape. Uh well, that and hockey
sticks. eh?
-Bill

I don't use tape, but I very often make my own mounting brackets for
cooling fans.

Michael Black

2013-12-28 18:00:30 UTC

Post by philoÂ
Back in high school I had a friend who made a complete mess of
everything he built...he even just used line cord to feed his dipole.
Yep, everything worked absolutely great!

Nothing wrong with a line cord dipole. The insulation doesn't affect
radiation, and keeps it from shorting out on things like wet leaves if
you run it through a tree. And 16 gauge should handle a KW (although
I've never tried it - I would prefer 14 gauge or bigger). And the
multiple strands will improve skin effect conductivity.
The only problem would be the lack of strength, but it should be ok as
long as you have the center supported.

Most of us used coax but since the line cord worked fine I guess the
coax was not necessary.

Ah, I miss read it and thought you were taking about the dipole itself (which
I have done). Actually zip cord is just twin-lead. Impedance is around 72
ohms or so, IIRC. Should work fine.

Yes, 72ohms. It was certainly a common concept in the old days (which I
think is even up to the fifties at least). I have books that talk about
using it, and those aren't from before the fifties.

Michael

coffelt2

2013-12-29 08:29:57 UTC

Post by philoÂ
Back in high school I had a friend who made a complete mess of
everything he built...he even just used line cord to feed his dipole.
Yep, everything worked absolutely great!

Nothing wrong with a line cord dipole. The insulation doesn't affect
radiation, and keeps it from shorting out on things like wet leaves if
you run it through a tree. And 16 gauge should handle a KW (although
I've never tried it - I would prefer 14 gauge or bigger). And the
multiple strands will improve skin effect conductivity.
The only problem would be the lack of strength, but it should be ok as
long as you have the center supported.

Most of us used coax but since the line cord worked fine I guess the
coax was not necessary.

Ah, I miss read it and thought you were taking about the dipole itself
(which I have done). Actually zip cord is just twin-lead. Impedance is
around 72 ohms or so, IIRC. Should work fine.

Ah, yes, Zip Cord...... AKA Twin Line! It was a super revelation after
several years
of boiling wooden dowels in parafine (for weatherproofing) to make 6" spaced
600 ohm
open wire dipole feedlines. I have no references now, but ISTR about 1950,
"TwinLead"
became relatively inexpensive and worked almost as well as "open wire" until
it rained.
(big grin) Thousands of 6L6's and even 807's worked their way up 300 ohm
"TV" twinlead
and into the "either"........ and one even had to copy CW in front of
the "Inspector"!!!
in those "good ol' days".

Old Chief Lynn, W7LTQ since 1948

philo

2013-12-29 13:50:15 UTC

On 12/29/2013 02:29 AM, coffelt2 wrote:
pedance is around 72 ohms or so, IIRC. Should work fine.

Post by coffelt2

Post by Michael Black
Yes, 72ohms. It was certainly a common concept in the old days (which
I think is even up to the fifties at least). I have books that talk
about using it, and those aren't from before the fifties.
Michael

Ah, yes, Zip Cord...... AKA Twin Line! It was a super revelation
after several years
of boiling wooden dowels in parafine (for weatherproofing) to make 6"
spaced 600 ohm
open wire dipole feedlines. I have no references now, but ISTR about
1950, "TwinLead"
became relatively inexpensive and worked almost as well as "open wire"
until it rained.
(big grin) Thousands of 6L6's and even 807's worked their way up 300 ohm
"TV" twinlead
and into the "either"........ and one even had to copy CW in front
of the "Inspector"!!!
in those "good ol' days".
Old Chief Lynn, W7LTQ since 1948

I was licensed in 1964 so do not qualify as an old timer.

My advisor in school was an old timer. He used "beer bottle" capacitors.

A zinc tub of salt water and beer bottles filler with salt water. He
told us that if you were transmitting and a bottle broke, "You knew it!"

Michael Black

2013-12-29 14:51:01 UTC

Post by philoÂ
pedance is around 72 ohms or so, IIRC. Should work fine.

Post by coffelt2

Ah, yes, Zip Cord...... AKA Twin Line! It was a super revelation
after several years
of boiling wooden dowels in parafine (for weatherproofing) to make 6"
spaced 600 ohm
open wire dipole feedlines. I have no references now, but ISTR about
1950, "TwinLead"
became relatively inexpensive and worked almost as well as "open wire"
until it rained.
(big grin) Thousands of 6L6's and even 807's worked their way up 300 ohm
"TV" twinlead
and into the "either"........ and one even had to copy CW in front
of the "Inspector"!!!
in those "good ol' days".
Old Chief Lynn, W7LTQ since 1948

I was licensed in 1964 so do not qualify as an old timer.
My advisor in school was an old timer. He used "beer bottle" capacitors.
A zinc tub of salt water and beer bottles filler with salt water. He told us
that if you were transmitting and a bottle broke, "You knew it!"

If you've been licensed longer than the next guy, that makes you an
oldtimer.

I remember when I "finally" got to the point where I could have joined the
QWCA, but that was sixteen years ago already, another nine and it's fifty
years.

There was a filler in QST about that sort of capacitor. SOmeone being a
radioman in Alaska, so the parts weren't readily available, but the tub
and the salt water, and the beer bottles were.

Michael

philo

2013-12-29 15:38:33 UTC

Post by philoÂ
I was licensed in 1964 so do not qualify as an old timer.
My advisor in school was an old timer. He used "beer bottle" capacitors.
A zinc tub of salt water and beer bottles filler with salt water. He
told us that if you were transmitting and a bottle broke, "You knew it!"

If you've been licensed longer than the next guy, that makes you an
oldtimer.
I remember when I "finally" got to the point where I could have joined
the QWCA, but that was sixteen years ago already, another nine and it's
fifty years.
There was a filler in QST about that sort of capacitor. SOmeone being a
radioman in Alaska, so the parts weren't readily available, but the tub
and the salt water, and the beer bottles were.
Michael

I did a Google search and found out folks are still using beer bottle
capacitors!

Michael Black

2013-12-29 18:40:46 UTC

If you've been licensed longer than the next guy, that makes you an
oldtimer.
I remember when I "finally" got to the point where I could have joined
the QWCA, but that was sixteen years ago already, another nine and it's
fifty years.
There was a filler in QST about that sort of capacitor. SOmeone being a
radioman in Alaska, so the parts weren't readily available, but the tub
and the salt water, and the beer bottles were.
Michael

I did a Google search and found out folks are still using beer bottle
capacitors!

If you have the space, they certainly are cheap, and the bits needed
easily available. I'm not sure I've seen any word on the value of the
capacitance, perhaps they are useful for things like those big
transmitting loops, that tend to need high voltage capacitors for tuning.

Michael

Jerry Stuckle

2013-12-29 18:59:28 UTC

If you've been licensed longer than the next guy, that makes you an
oldtimer.
I remember when I "finally" got to the point where I could have joined
the QWCA, but that was sixteen years ago already, another nine and it's
fifty years.
There was a filler in QST about that sort of capacitor. SOmeone being a
radioman in Alaska, so the parts weren't readily available, but the tub
and the salt water, and the beer bottles were.
Michael

I did a Google search and found out folks are still using beer bottle
capacitors!

I need to build a rather large beer bottle capacitor for a project I'm
working on. I figure I'll have to drain at least 5 cases. :)

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K
***@attglobal.net
==================

philo

2013-12-30 00:30:45 UTC

Post by Michael Black
There was a filler in QST about that sort of capacitor. SOmeone being a
radioman in Alaska, so the parts weren't readily available, but the tub
and the salt water, and the beer bottles were.
Michael

I did a Google search and found out folks are still using beer bottle
capacitors!

I need to build a rather large beer bottle capacitor for a project I'm
working on. I figure I'll have to drain at least 5 cases. :)

I think it was 73 Magazine that had an article on a beer can antenna.

Back when the cans were steel. They made a vertical by soldering the
cans together...but most folks never got around to building it once they
"readied" the cans.

Michael Black

2013-12-30 04:01:07 UTC

I did a Google search and found out folks are still using beer bottle
capacitors!

I need to build a rather large beer bottle capacitor for a project I'm
working on. I figure I'll have to drain at least 5 cases. :)

I think it was 73 Magazine that had an article on a beer can antenna.
Back when the cans were steel. They made a vertical by soldering the cans
together...but most folks never got around to building it once they "readied"
the cans.

I remember that one.

But you know, it also sounds a bit like one of those W6ISQ stories in QST
(I think I got that callsign right). Stories about setting up for field
day and the like "well the boys got into the beer a bit early...".

Michael

coffelt2

2014-01-07 05:14:56 UTC

Post by philoÂ
pedance is around 72 ohms or so, IIRC. Should work fine.

Post by coffelt2

Ah, yes, Zip Cord...... AKA Twin Line! It was a super revelation
after several years
of boiling wooden dowels in parafine (for weatherproofing) to make 6"
spaced 600 ohm
open wire dipole feedlines. I have no references now, but ISTR about
1950, "TwinLead"
became relatively inexpensive and worked almost as well as "open wire"
until it rained.
(big grin) Thousands of 6L6's and even 807's worked their way up 300 ohm
"TV" twinlead
and into the "either"........ and one even had to copy CW in front
of the "Inspector"!!!
in those "good ol' days".
Old Chief Lynn, W7LTQ since 1948

I was licensed in 1964 so do not qualify as an old timer.
My advisor in school was an old timer. He used "beer bottle" capacitors.
A zinc tub of salt water and beer bottles filler with salt water. He told
us that if you were transmitting and a bottle broke, "You knew it!"

Golly, Philo, I thought when qualified for QCWA one was considered
an old timer! You are there, two times over! Congratulations!

Oh, when a bottle broke, who was responsible for creating another
empty bottle? Hmmmmm?

When I built my 40M 1/4 wave vertical beer can antenna, there were
friends that would help provide the empty cans. Free.

Old Chief Lynn

philo

2014-01-07 13:25:03 UTC

Post by coffelt2
C

Golly, Philo, I thought when qualified for QCWA one was considered
an old timer! You are there, two times over! Congratulations!
Oh, when a bottle broke, who was responsible for creating another
empty bottle? Hmmmmm?
When I built my 40M 1/4 wave vertical beer can antenna, there were
friends that would help provide the empty cans. Free.
Old Chief Lynn

My theory is that when everyone is born they have a "beer allotment" of
so many thousands of gallons. I used up my entire allotment by the time
I was 45.

Jerry Stuckle

2014-01-07 21:33:16 UTC

Post by coffelt2
C

Golly, Philo, I thought when qualified for QCWA one was considered
an old timer! You are there, two times over! Congratulations!
Oh, when a bottle broke, who was responsible for creating another
empty bottle? Hmmmmm?
When I built my 40M 1/4 wave vertical beer can antenna, there were
friends that would help provide the empty cans. Free.
Old Chief Lynn

My theory is that when everyone is born they have a "beer allotment" of
so many thousands of gallons. I used up my entire allotment by the time
I was 45.

What took you so long? :)

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K
***@attglobal.net
==================

philo

2014-01-07 22:05:03 UTC