Re: [drakelist] R4C +B Voltage

[Greg]

"Greg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterance to the drakelist gang
--

Hello
My R4C has developed a problem.
The +B voltage that should be originally +150V is only +130V. 
The capacity of the electrolytic capacitor C163  decreases??

May I have any suggestions about this cause?

73 de JA2JVC Ishii


Sounds like a decent guess, when the capacitance decreases you will get
more AC and less DC voltage , you could measure the ripple if you have a 
multimeter that handles biased ac.

Try adding an extra cap paralell to C163 to see if it helps.

//Greg
--
Submissions:drakelist@www.zerobeat.net
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  www.zerobeat.net - sponsored by www.tlchost.net
--

[drakelist] R4C +B Voltage

[megumi]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] made an utterance to the drakelist gang
--
Hello
My R4C has developed a problem.
The +B voltage that should be originally +150V is only +130V. 
The capacity of the electrolytic capacitor C163  decreases??
May I have any suggestions about this cause?

73 de JA2JVC Ishii

--
Submissions:drakelist@www.zerobeat.net
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  www.zerobeat.net - sponsored by www.tlchost.net
--

Re: [drakelist] R4C repair tip

[Mike Williams]

Good tip Carlo:  it is going into my Drake 
file.
 
Merry Christmas!
 
Mike W4DL

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  carlobianconi 
  To: drakelist@www.zerobeat.net 
  Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 1:21 
  PM
  Subject: [drakelist] R4C repair tip
  
  Hallo, just few words on a new ( for me 
  ) problem on an R4C
  PTO not working. Checked the + 11V 
  supply, not present.
  Changed C165, tantalum cap. The supply 
  goes OK, but the pto, now oscillating, is warbling up and down in frequency on 
  a random basis.
  Dismounted and changed the 8 V zener 
  diode. Absolutely perfect!
  At school, 30 years ago, I learned 
  about the fact that zener diodes are noisy devices, but this has been the very 
  first time I experienced this .
  I hope that this tip will be useful to 
  the reders!
  Regards
  Carlo Bianconi  
IK4ISQ

[drakelist] R4C repair tip

[carlobianconi]

Hallo, just few words on a new ( for me ) 
problem on an R4C
PTO not working. Checked the + 11V 
supply, not present.
Changed C165, tantalum cap. The supply 
goes OK, but the pto, now oscillating, is warbling up and down in frequency on a 
random basis.
Dismounted and changed the 8 V zener 
diode. Absolutely perfect!
At school, 30 years ago, I learned about 
the fact that zener diodes are noisy devices, but this has been the very first 
time I experienced this .
I hope that this tip will be useful to 
the reders!
Regards
Carlo Bianconi  
IK4ISQ

Re: [drakelist] R4C Dial Cleaning

[Cfzepp]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] made an utterance to the drakelist gang
--
Kevin:
Its caused by the radios being allowed  to sit somewhere with the sun beaming 
in on the radio dial for a long period of  time, such as weeks and months, 
ect.

There is no fix other than  finding a used dial

Don / www.wa9tgt.com 



WA9TGT / Donnie  Garrett / Muncie, IN 
ARCI #6447, ARS #1717, AmQRP, ECI-QRP #001  (Indiana)
Drake 2B, R4A, R4B, K2 #3186, K1 #1806 
LDG Z-11 Auto Tuner,  102' CF Zepp using glass doobies!  

--
Submissions:drakelist@www.zerobeat.net
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  www.zerobeat.net - sponsored by www.tlchost.net
--

[drakelist] R4C Dial Cleaning

[Kevin Gray]

I have a R4C with yellowing on the dial.  Is there any easy way to clean this.  Looks like it is next to impossible to
get to.  

 


Thanks,


Kevin 

 

 

K8su

 

 

[drakelist] R4C Follow Up

[Kevin Gray]

The R4C voltages were
incorrect as I measured with rig in standby.  Thanks to Garey K4OAH

 

 

Kevin

 

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [drakelist] R4C & B1000

[Mike]

Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterance to the drakelist gang
--
Thanks Ron /group
My Sams Tube Sub. Book was dated 1974 . It didn't show what you have on 
the Data Base.

The 6AU6 works like a charm! Now I can hear lots of signals.
BTW will be back to your site for the astronomy stuff. Use an Orion XT 
10 here in Eastern Iowa

sky has been bad lately but Mars was very clear last night.
Mike
Iowa


Ron Wagner wrote:


Mike,
In some applications a 6AU6 is able to be used for a 6HS6.  I have 
never owned a C line to know if that will work here.






--
Submissions:drakelist@www.zerobeat.net
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  www.zerobeat.net - sponsored by www.tlchost.net
--

Re: [drakelist] R4C & B1000

[Mike]

Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterance to the drakelist gang
--
Thanks Ron/ Group

First msg bounced on reply hope this works

My Sams book is dated 1974 and did not show what you have on the web 
site. Got that book marked

now for future use. It's a great resource.
The 6AU6's work great now I can hear lots of signals.
Will be back to your astronomy site later - using an Orion XT 10 here in 
Eastern Iowa

Mars was great last night.
Mike
Ron Wagner wrote:
Ron Wagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterance to the drakelist gang



Mike,
In some applications a 6AU6 is able to be used for a 6HS6.  I have 
never owned a C line to know if that will work here.





--
Submissions:drakelist@www.zerobeat.net
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  www.zerobeat.net - sponsored by www.tlchost.net
--

Re: [drakelist] R4C & B1000

[Ron Wagner]

Ron Wagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterance to the drakelist gang
--
Mike,
In some applications a 6AU6 is able to be used for a 6HS6.  I have never 
owned a C line to know if that will work here.


http://www.nj7p.org/Tube1.php?tube=6hs6

NJ7P runs a great service with his tube database on line.

73,
Ron


Visit my astronomy home page.   http://www.dma.org/~wagner
Amateur Radio Station: WD8SBB - Ron  and  KB8NRP - Joann


On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Mike wrote:

So I did the net thing and came up with horrendous prices on the 6HS6 - no 
way will I shell out that much

for a miniature tube that obsolete.
Being my third R4C something was strange, I remember a 6EJ7 but thought I was 
wrong it's in the T4XC?

-WRONG. My other R4C (SN 26374)  had all three mixers with 6EJ7's.
So now what? The HS6  is a 7BK base and the EJ7 is a 9AQ.   I suppose I could 
install new 9 pin bases

--
Submissions:drakelist@www.zerobeat.net
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  www.zerobeat.net - sponsored by www.tlchost.net
--

[drakelist] R4C & B1000

[Mike]

Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterance to the drakelist gang
--
   First thanks to all the help on the B 1000 data  when the smoke 
clears will attempt that next.


Now the main topic here is the C line & possible  tube upgrade.
The unit purchased last week was SN 19,000 and has three 6HS6 tubes for 
mixing. After an initial
test and some cleaning I tested all tubes as the signal was not strong 
and the calibrator and 500 hertz
filter not functional. The 250 cranked in after the De-oxit application, 
probably need a bit more to get the

500 started.
Only one tube of the three was a solid "good" , one was marginal and one 
needs a definite

junk box application all 6HS6.
So I did the net thing and came up with horrendous prices on the 6HS6 - 
no way will I shell out that much

for a miniature tube that obsolete.
Being my third R4C something was strange, I remember a 6EJ7 but thought 
I was wrong it's in the T4XC?

-WRONG. My other R4C (SN 26374)  had all three mixers with 6EJ7's.
So now what? The HS6  is a 7BK base and the EJ7 is a 9AQ.   I suppose I 
could  install new 9 pin bases
and rewire the circuit to match the higher SN unit and figure out what 
other parts are needed to balance the
circuits.  There are two  more parts for the  third mixer  titled mixer  
injection clippers.  This would be a
first try at  a modification like this so wonder if  it would be a 
mistake to attempt it??

BUT - has anyone tried this before successfully?

Footnote: Glad I got this unit to my surprise it has the K4ZS mods 
installed and apparently working.
That was the main reason for the purchase as mine was a nightmare to 
install with such poor instructions
all based on wire color code!!. Some guys were successful , many were 
not. I think it depended on

the production batch.
Tnx for any opinions/ ideas/ experience.
Mike 
Iowa






--
Submissions:drakelist@www.zerobeat.net
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  www.zerobeat.net - sponsored by www.tlchost.net
--

[drakelist] R4C low semsitivity

[Joe Roth]

"Joe Roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterance to the drakelist gang
--
I have the R4C and T4XC pair. The receiver's sensitivity is much better when 
I use the TX VFO on all bands. I also noticed my output power is better that 
way on 10 meters. For example, ON 10 METERS I have 30 watts in the tune 
position when using the R4C VFO but if I switch to the XMTR VFO, output 
jumps to 100 watts. ON 75 METERS there is no ouput difference.


I've check all the cables and I use RG62 for the INJ cable. All check out 
okay. Re-tubed and realigned both units last year (Sherwood mods to the RX).


Any ideas where to poke around?
Thanks gang!
Joe, N4ARI


--
Submissions:drakelist@www.zerobeat.net
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  www.zerobeat.net - sponsored by www.tlchost.net
--

Re: [drakelist] R4C PTO

[Doug Smith]

Doug Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterance to the drakelist gang
--
On Fri, 2005-10-14 at 08:28, Mel Bach wrote:
> Has anyone had problems with instability of the cw note? Has anyone > used 
> the filters provided by INRAD for 500 cycle cw etc?

I'm using the 1.8, 0.5 and 0.25 INRAD filters in my R-4C with great results.

73,
-Doug, W7KF


--
Submissions:drakelist@www.zerobeat.net
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  www.zerobeat.net - sponsored by www.tlchost.net
--

Re: [drakelist] R4C PTO

[abqcooks]

I just installed both the 500hz and 250hz Inrad filters and they are excellent.  
$110 apiece but well worth it.   jim  N5KY  -Original Message-From: Mel Bach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: drakelist@www.zerobeat.netSent: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:28:40 -0400Subject: [drakelist] R4C PTO





Has anyone had problems with instability of the cw note? Has anyone used the filters provided by INRAD for 500 cycle cw etc?

RE: [drakelist] R4C PTO

[Stricker, Michael]

No 
problems with my R4C and the full treatment of Sherwood 
modifications.
 
Mike, 
WA1SEO

  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Mel 
  BachSent: Friday, October 14, 2005 10:29 AMTo: 
  drakelist@www.zerobeat.netSubject: [drakelist] R4C 
  PTO
  Has anyone had problems with instability of the 
  cw note? Has anyone used the filters provided by INRAD for 500 cycle cw 
  etc?

Re: [drakelist] R4C PTO

[Garey Barrell]

Garey Barrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterance to the drakelist gang
--
Mel -

What sort of instability?   If it's a "jittery" note as you tune across 
a signal, or intermittent "jumping", it's a known condition and easy to fix.


The INRAD filters are fine.  They are actually a little better filter 
than the Drake unit, primarily because of advances in filter design 
technology over 30 years.


73, Garey - K4OAH
Atlanta

Drake C-Line Service Manual




Mel Bach wrote:

Has anyone had problems with instability of the cw note? Has anyone 
used the filters provided by INRAD for 500 cycle cw etc?


--
Submissions:drakelist@www.zerobeat.net
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  www.zerobeat.net - sponsored by www.tlchost.net
--

[drakelist] R4C PTO

[Mel Bach]

Has anyone had problems with instability of the cw 
note? Has anyone used the filters provided by INRAD for 500 cycle cw 
etc?

[drakelist] R4C

[Frank]

Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterance to the drakelist gang
--
I try receiver Drake R4-c if an good condition
please send e_mail to my address :
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Tnx Frank







___ 
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB 
http://mail.yahoo.it
--
Submissions:drakelist@www.zerobeat.net
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  www.zerobeat.net - sponsored by www.tlchost.net
--

Re: [drakelist] R4C questions

[Garey Barrell]

Garey Barrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterance to the drakelist gang
--
Jim -

For anything less than heavy contest use on the low bands, the addition 
of the 500 Hz or even the 250 Hz 2nd IF filter is plenty.  The Drake 
filters are fine, but they have gotten expensive enough that the Inrad 
filters are not very much more and you get a little better, New, filter 
without messing around with EBay!


The 8 pole, 8 kHz roofing filter is only a little better than the 4 
pole, 8 kHz "stock" roofing filter.  Sharper skirts, keeping a little 
more "unwanted" RF out of the 1st Mixer, but again not really 
significant in day-to-day use.


Personally, I prefer the 1.2 kHz filter for CW for normal use.  I like 
to know what is going on around my frequency, and get claustrophobic 
with narrow filters!  It IS nice to have the narrower ones very 
occasionally when some "alligator" decides to move in "on" top of your 
QSO!  :-)


The best audio mod is to change C100 from 0.1 uF to 0.68 uF (or so) to 
bring the low end audio up.  The stock audio is a little "hissy" because 
of a high end peak / low end rolloff.


For contests, especially on the low bands where you can have VOLTS of RF 
on the antenna from two dozen, 2KW, 80 dB or 9 signals within the 8 kHz 
roofing filter, the 600 Hz roofing filter and all the other Sherwood 
stuff can help a LOT!!


The Sherwood 3rd mixer can be nice, since 6EJ7s have a tendency to be 
noisy.  You have to select, even from NOS tubes, to get a quiet one.  
Once you do though, it will last for years.   On the other hand, I've 
seen more than a few receivers screwed up by improper installation of 
this mixer!


I don't think the C can ever sound as good as the B, maybe it's that 
"tube sound"!  :-)   Some even prefer the R-4A, claiming it sounds 
better because even more stages are tube based.   Shades of the audio crowd!


Just my opinion, worth exactly what you paid for it!

73, Garey - K4OAH
Atlanta

Drake C-Line Service Manual




[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


I'm lucky to have just aquired a C-line in very fine condition.
Ser #s are 24xxx and the rigs have been stored in plastic wrap for 
years here in the high desert of NM. Most all of the tubes are 
Sylvania and I get 140 watts from the T4XC.

The R4C rcvr is stock with a 1.2 khz plug in CW filter.
There were a few intermittent troubles which were cured with DeOxit on 
the wafer switches.
The xmtr is equivent to by B-line rigs but the rcvr seems less than 
an R4B ...

the audio is not nearly as pleasant, nor is the selectivity.
My question is:
as a CW op,  what is the best cure for selectivity ? 
I have read of the Sherwood mods and the Xtals from INRAD .
I plan to order a 500 hz second IF filter from INRAD but am hoping for 
suggestions
on the GUF-1 INRAD  first IF 8khz filter. I wonder if it would be of 
benefit to a CW guy
and wonder about the diffiulty of the modification.  Anyone have an 
any experience with that mod ??  Easy/difficult ...  worth it for CW ?

Any ideas on the audio  the R4B beats it HI !
  any ideas welcometks   jim 
N5KY  
 


--
Submissions:drakelist@www.zerobeat.net
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  www.zerobeat.net - sponsored by www.tlchost.net
--

Re: [drakelist] R4C questions

[Bob Henderson]

Hi Jim
 
The R-4C makes a very fine CW receiver but in its standard form and without 
a CW filter it is lacklustre.  An Inrad 500Hz filter will make a 
significant improvement to selectivity.  The GUF-1 will add nothing 
worthwhile for CW and in my own opinion doesn't add too much to SSB use 
either.  I put a GUF-1/8kHz in my R-4C here and frankly found the 
difference a little disappointing.  That said, I'm not much of a phone 
operator and if I were, perhaps I might find greater utility in it.
 
If you really want to sharpen up skirt selectivity for CW use, the way to 
go is with a Sherwood CF-600/6.  This filter is inserted in the first i/f 
and uses TO5 can relays for switching.  I have one of these installed in my 
current R-4C as I did in my previous R-4C which I owned 25 years ago.  It 
is excellent and for a serious CW man, it's worth every cent.  
Installation is quite straight forward for someone competent with a 
soldering iron.
 
Unfortunately the stock R-4C is a bit grungy in the audio department.  
It makes sense to replace the audio output stage with a modern IC amp.  
Sherwood does offer a kit for this too, though I think there may be others 
available too.  Take a look at the mods offered by Rob Sherwood at www.sherweng.com My own relationship with Rob 
extends no further than being a very satisfied user of his products 
for over 25 years.
 
Good luck.
 
73
 
Bob, 5B4AGN
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  To: drakelist@www.zerobeat.net 
  Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 4:12 
  AM
  Subject: [drakelist] R4C questions
  
  I'm lucky to have just aquired a C-line in very fine condition.
  Ser #s are 24xxx and the rigs have been stored in plastic wrap for years 
  here in the high desert of NM. Most all of the tubes are Sylvania and I 
  get 140 watts from the T4XC.
  The R4C rcvr is stock with a 1.2 khz plug in CW filter. 
  There were a few intermittent troubles which were cured with DeOxit on 
  the wafer switches.
  The xmtr is equivent to by B-line rigs but the rcvr seems less than 
  an R4B ...
  the audio is not nearly as pleasant, nor is the selectivity. 
  My question is:
  as a CW op,  what is the best cure for selectivity ?  
  I have read of the Sherwood mods and the Xtals from INRAD .
  I plan to order a 500 hz second IF filter from INRAD but am hoping for 
  suggestions
  on the GUF-1 INRAD  first IF 8khz filter. I wonder if it would 
  be of benefit to a CW guy
  and wonder about the diffiulty of the modification.  Anyone have an 
  any experience with that mod ??  Easy/difficult ...  worth it 
  for CW ? 
  Any ideas on the audio  the R4B beats it 
  HI !
    
  any ideas welcome    tks   jim N5KY  
   

[drakelist] R4C questions

[Abqcooks]

I'm lucky to have just aquired a C-line in very fine condition.
Ser #s are 24xxx and the rigs have been stored in plastic wrap for years here in the high desert of NM. Most all of the tubes are Sylvania and I get 140 watts from the T4XC.
The R4C rcvr is stock with a 1.2 khz plug in CW filter. 
There were a few intermittent troubles which were cured with DeOxit on the wafer switches.
The xmtr is equivent to by B-line rigs but the rcvr seems less than an R4B ...
the audio is not nearly as pleasant, nor is the selectivity. 
My question is:
as a CW op,  what is the best cure for selectivity ?  
I have read of the Sherwood mods and the Xtals from INRAD .
I plan to order a 500 hz second IF filter from INRAD but am hoping for suggestions
on the GUF-1 INRAD  first IF 8khz filter. I wonder if it would be of benefit to a CW guy
and wonder about the diffiulty of the modification.  Anyone have an any experience with that mod ??  Easy/difficult ...  worth it for CW ? 
Any ideas on the audio  the R4B beats it HI !
  any ideas welcome    tks   jim N5KY  
 

[drakelist] R4C IMD problem (was image problem) - a postscript

[Bob Henderson]

"Bob Henderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterance to the drakelist gang
--
I have now used my R-4C for a few days after having adjusted the 1st mixer
injection ratio to around 9:1.  What I have found has been interesting.  The
third order IMD response in practice appears vastly better than the 70dB I
measured after I'd increased the injection ratio.

Prior to the change, I was suffering from heavy BC generated IMD products on
40m.  In particular at dusk, end-stopping signals on 7115 and 7165 combined
to produce an S9+ heavily distorted IMD product on 7065.  With the increased
injection ratio, I now find that the end stopping signals on 7115 & 7165
produce nothing detectable on 7065 even with an S1 noise level.  This
implies a wide spaced IMD3 response of around 100 dB.  That seems pretty
unlikely but it certainly confirms what I have to be better than the 70 dB I
had measured.

Back in the workshop, I set about re-testing for IMD3 response.  What I
found was that my previous test had been flawed due to a change in input
levels.  This time my measurements suggested a figure of 90 dB or better.
More like it !

The main difficulty I have had in making progress with this problem has been
the Heath Robinson nature of my test set-up.  The measurement
inconsistencies I have suffered have sent me on several wild goose chases.
Consequently, I have vowed to construct a more satisfactory test set-up.

What I currently have in mind, is to build two seperate low noise xtal
oscillator & buffer amplifier circuits producing a 20 dBm output.  One
oscillator fixed on 7040 and the other switchable 7039.5, 7039, 7038, 7035,
7030, 7020.  I have chosen this frequency as 7040 xtals are available
cheaply ($2.50) due to their extensive use by the QRP fraternity.  As yet, I
am undecided whether to use several xtals in oscillator 2 or just make it a
VXO.  Either way, I expect the 7040 xtals can be pulled adequately to
provide most of the required frequencies.  I haven't settled on the devices
to use in the oscillator but believe that low noise CATV devices will
probably be a good choice.  I have managed to obtain some appropriate step
attenuators quite cheaply, so I plan to run each oscillator output through
its own attenuator chain then through a combiner.  This arrangement will
allow both signal outputs to be adjustable in 1 dB increments from +20 dBm
thru -150 dBm and provide a source to source isolation at -13 dBm (S9+60) of
better than 90 dB, which will hopefully ensure the output remains
essentially intermod free.

If anyone has already done something like this or feels a different approach
might be better, I would appreciate your advice and being able to share
further thoughts with you.

73

Bob, 5B4AGN


--
On Behalf of "Bob Henderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Submissions:drakelist@www.zerobeat.net
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
--

Re: [drakelist] R4C hum

[Gary Poland]

Paul,
  There is a mod to relocate the wiring that 
connects from the power supply board to the can filter capacitor outside of the 
main harness and route them along the outside edge of the chassis 
with heavier gage wire. This helps reduce the hum.
 
73, Gary

Re: [drakelist] R4C IMD problem (was image problem)

[Bob Henderson]

"Bob Henderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterance to the drakelist gang
--
Many thanks to those who have written off reflector expressing interest and
offering encouragement.

The primary mystery is why the 6EJ7 1st mixer in this particular R-4C has
such an abysmal IMD3 performance.  The mixer circuit isn't complex and I've
been through it a dozen times looking for faulty components but find none.

Without any specific knowledge of what the injection levels to the 6EJ7
ought to be, I've had little choice but to follow my instincts and aim to
increase the ratio of premix to wanted signals.

Having found the 6BA6 RF amp guilty of producing IMD3 products only 60dB or
so down and having found that increasing the screen voltage to 100V improved
this to around 80dB, Steve, VK6VZ told me that Tom, W8JI recommends
increasing the screen volts to 130V.  This I have done and so far as I can
determine, IMD3 products at the output of the RF amp are now >90dB down.
That has to be good.

However, the big problem is the 6EJ7 1st mixer and of course, the increased
output from the RF amp, consequent upon the increase in screen volts,
exacerbates that.  So I've reduced the gain of the RF amp to around 12-15dB
through the introduction of a 2k2 resistor and 50nF bypass cap into the
cathode feed.  This allows me to leave the AGC1 feed to the RF amp
unmolested.

Next, I set about increasing premix injection.  Basically I want to double
this from around 2V p.p to around 4V p.p.  It wouldn't be any use messing
about with the premix circuit itself, as I need the same injection from the
T-4XC premix chain.  It certainly doesn't make much sense to have to modify
the T-4XC premix chain too.  I decided use of a 2:1 UNUN was worth a try.  I
wound 7 trifilar turns on a T37-2 core (I think T37-7 would be better, but I
don't have one) and connected them appropriately.  I disconnected the premix
injection from the 10pF ceramic cap on g1 of the 6EJ7.  I then connected the
premix to the input side of the 1:2 UNUN and attached the output to the 10pF
cap.  Maybe the UNUN provides an unwelcome bit of loading but the premix
level still increased to a more desirable 3.5V p.p.  My fears about the
T37-2 core not being good enough for 10m where the premix injection is
around 35 MHz appear unfounded.  I still get a good 3.5V p.p. there.

So where has all of this got me?

Well, with two 30mV signals at the input to the RF amp I now get an output
of around 380mV, which feeds into the 6EJ7.  The premix injection is now
3.5V giving me an injection ratio of >9:1.  That feels a lot better to me
than the <2:1 I had before I made any changes.

So what about IMD3 response?

Well that has improved from around 45dB to around 70dB.  Now 70dB is
somewhat short of impressive but nonetheless, it's a sackload more than 45dB
:-))  This 70dB figure holds good for 60 kHz spacing and for 2 kHz spacing.
(Sherwood CF600/6 installed).

Remaining concerns?

Despite the significant change in injection ratio at the input to the 1st
mixer, examination of the IMD3 products at its output confirm that this
mixer is still the fundamental constraint on overall IMD3 performance.

I'm still scratching my head over why this mixer in its standard config
should be so bad.  Though at least I can now listen usefully to 40m in the
early evening while I do so:-)

73

Bob, 5B4AGN


--
On Behalf of "Bob Henderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Submissions:drakelist@www.zerobeat.net
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
--

Re: [drakelist] R4C hum

[Bob Henderson]

Paul
 
I would recommend the Sherwood psu mod.  
It'll get rid of most of your other dubious electrolytics in one fell 
swoop and will also significantly reduce heat disipation around the pto 
area  This will lead to a significant improvement in frequency 
stability.  It's a straight forward installation too.
 
73 
 
Bob, 5B4AGN

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  AD3G 
  To: drakelist@www.zerobeat.net 
  Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 4:18 
  AM
  Subject: [drakelist] R4C hum
  
  Hello list...I recently acquired a nice 
  R4C,but it has some issues...I powered up slowly on a variac,but the filter 
  caps were hopelessly shot. I replaced with a Sherwood filter cap kit.I have 
  far less hum,but it's still there,just not as bad(I can hear reciever hiss 
  now). Would a power supply mod be in order,(Sherwood)or should I just change 
  out the caps on the p/s board? I'm new to Drake gear and wanted to see what 
  the general consensus of the Drake gang would be.
   I plan on keeping the R4C for a 
  while,so I want to do it right the first time.  
   
     73  
  Paul

[drakelist] R4C hum

[AD3G]

Hello list...I recently acquired a nice 
R4C,but it has some issues...I powered up slowly on a variac,but the filter caps 
were hopelessly shot. I replaced with a Sherwood filter cap kit.I have far less 
hum,but it's still there,just not as bad(I can hear reciever hiss now). Would a 
power supply mod be in order,(Sherwood)or should I just change out the caps on 
the p/s board? I'm new to Drake gear and wanted to see what the general 
consensus of the Drake gang would be.
 I plan on keeping the R4C for a 
while,so I want to do it right the first time.  
 
   73  
Paul

RE: [drakelist] R4C IMD problem (was image problem)

[Martin Sole]

"Martin Sole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterance to the drakelist gang
--
Bob,

This is really just by way of encouragement but I have been following your
progress with the R4C and find it very interesting. I have an R4C here that
seems to be working well but I have not yet looked to see if there are any
odd behavioural traits similar to those yours has, too many projects! I for
one will be interested to see what you can eventually resolve as a cure, it
is fixable, definitely, and it will be interesting to read about your
methods and process. Keep at it.

73
Martin HS0ZED


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Henderson
Sent: 13 August 2005 04:08
To: drake mailing list
Subject: Re: [drakelist] R4C IMD problem (was image problem)


"Bob Henderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterance to the drakelist gang
--
I understand it's bad etiquette to respond to your own posts but this is
more of an addendum than a response, as such :-)

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.7/70 - Release Date: 11/08/2005
 

--
On Behalf of "Martin Sole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Submissions:drakelist@www.zerobeat.net
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
--

Re: [drakelist] R4C IMD problem (was image problem)

[Bob Henderson]

"Bob Henderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterance to the drakelist gang
--
I understand it's bad etiquette to respond to your own posts but this is
more of an addendum than a response, as such :-)

Before I go further, I should point out I have a powerful feeling that if I
knew what I was doing, I might possibly be on the verge of achieving
something useful!  The reality however, is that I obviously don't know what
I'm doing and consequently, although I can see the trees clearly, it's hard
to discern the wood :-)

Unable to avoid tinkering, I have set about reducing the input to the 1st
mixer from the RF stage.  Having decided to do this, I first took the step
of improving the DR of the RF stage by reducing the value of the screen feed
resistor from 18k to 6.8k increasing Vscr from around 55V to 95V.  I then
set about reducing the stage gain.  I seperated g1 of the RF stage from AGC1
and instead applied a variable bias voltage.  I currently have this set
to -7.5V.  With this arrangement, all sign of IMD3 products on 40/20m have
entirely disappeared.

I have adjusted the s-meter to compensate for reduced RF gain and everything
appears hunky dory, though I don't believe it really is, even for a moment.
Essentially, an S9+40dB signal at the input now yields about 250mV p.p. at
the o/p of the RF amp.  IMD3 products appear to be >80dB down.  With about
2.1V p.p pre-mix injection this is an injection ratio at the input of the
1st mixer of around 8:1.

A less enquiring mind might consider this a fix but I'm not convinced!

Have I achieved anything more than a front-end attenuator would achieve?
What should the pre-mix injection level really be?  With strong BC signals
on 40m, what is an expected p.p o/p from the 6BA6 RF stage?  If I could only
lay my hands on the appropriate addition of Soap, I'm sure these, among
other, questions would be answered :-)

I'm fumbling around in the dark here.  Does anyone have a torch?

73

Bob, 5B4AGN


- Original Message -
From: "Bob Henderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "drake mailing list" 
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 8:37 AM
Subject: [drakelist] R4C IMD problem (was image problem)


>
> "Bob Henderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterance to the drakelist
gang
> --
> "Oh no he's back!", I hear you say.
>
> I finally got some time this morning to put the R4C back on the bench.  I
> have modified my test setup to use direct injection of signals via
> attenuators.  My signal generators are a TS570 and a TS870.  Both are
> producing 10W output into dummy loads from which signals are bled off
> through 100k resistors to a common 50 ohm resistor.  The output across
this
> second 50 ohm resistor is fed to a 2 way coax switch allowing me to inject
> the resulting two tone signal into either the R4C or a TS930.  The TS570
was
> running on 14100 kHz and the TS870 on 14170 kHz.
>
> I injected the two-tone signal into the TS930 and it produced signals on
> 14100 & 14170 of around S9+50dB on the 930 s-meter.  I checked for a third
> order product on 2*14100 - 14170 = 14030 and it was audible but making no
> discernible s-meter deflection.  Somewhere around 90dB down.  Next, I
> injected the same two-tone signal into the R-4C.  Signals at 14100 & 14170
> indicated S9+45 on the R-4C and at 14030 indicated S9.  Apparently, only
> around 45dB down.
>
> I then connected the 930 via *10 scope probe to the output of the 5645
> roofing filter and tuned the 930 to that frequency.  I tuned the R-4C to
> 14100 & 14170 and found 1st mixer output on 5645 at around S9+40.  I then
> tuned the R-4C to 14030 and the 930 s-meter indicated S8 or around 45dB
> down.
>
> At this point I believe I have reconfirmed the following:
>
> 1. The TS930 has adequate IMD3 performance to serve as a spectrum analyser
> in this test.
> 2. My makeshift combiner/attenuator for the signals from the 570 & 870
> introduces no discernable IMD of its own.
> 3. The R-4C IMD problem is caused somewhere in the 6BA6 RF stage and 6EJ7
> mixer stage.
>
> Next, I connected the output of the R-4C rf stage into the TS930 via my
*10
> scope probe.  I checked for signals on 14100 & 14170.  These were
> end-stopping the 930 s-meter so I added some attenuation to bring them
down
> to S9+50.  I checked 14030 and found the IMD was at S7 or around 65dB
down.
> This is not good but not as bad as only 45dB down.
>
> I increased the screen voltage on the RF amplifier 6BA6 and found I could
> increase the gap between the two-tone signal strengths and the IMD to
better
> than 80db.  At this point I thought I was onto a winner.  I rec

[drakelist] R4C IMD problem (was image problem)

[Bob Henderson]

"Bob Henderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterance to the drakelist gang
--
"Oh no he's back!", I hear you say.

I finally got some time this morning to put the R4C back on the bench.  I
have modified my test setup to use direct injection of signals via
attenuators.  My signal generators are a TS570 and a TS870.  Both are
producing 10W output into dummy loads from which signals are bled off
through 100k resistors to a common 50 ohm resistor.  The output across this
second 50 ohm resistor is fed to a 2 way coax switch allowing me to inject
the resulting two tone signal into either the R4C or a TS930.  The TS570 was
running on 14100 kHz and the TS870 on 14170 kHz.

I injected the two-tone signal into the TS930 and it produced signals on
14100 & 14170 of around S9+50dB on the 930 s-meter.  I checked for a third
order product on 2*14100 - 14170 = 14030 and it was audible but making no
discernible s-meter deflection.  Somewhere around 90dB down.  Next, I
injected the same two-tone signal into the R-4C.  Signals at 14100 & 14170
indicated S9+45 on the R-4C and at 14030 indicated S9.  Apparently, only
around 45dB down.

I then connected the 930 via *10 scope probe to the output of the 5645
roofing filter and tuned the 930 to that frequency.  I tuned the R-4C to
14100 & 14170 and found 1st mixer output on 5645 at around S9+40.  I then
tuned the R-4C to 14030 and the 930 s-meter indicated S8 or around 45dB
down.

At this point I believe I have reconfirmed the following:

1. The TS930 has adequate IMD3 performance to serve as a spectrum analyser
in this test.
2. My makeshift combiner/attenuator for the signals from the 570 & 870
introduces no discernable IMD of its own.
3. The R-4C IMD problem is caused somewhere in the 6BA6 RF stage and 6EJ7
mixer stage.

Next, I connected the output of the R-4C rf stage into the TS930 via my *10
scope probe.  I checked for signals on 14100 & 14170.  These were
end-stopping the 930 s-meter so I added some attenuation to bring them down
to S9+50.  I checked 14030 and found the IMD was at S7 or around 65dB down.
This is not good but not as bad as only 45dB down.

I increased the screen voltage on the RF amplifier 6BA6 and found I could
increase the gap between the two-tone signal strengths and the IMD to better
than 80db.  At this point I thought I was onto a winner.  I reconnected my
*10 scope probe to the 5695 roofing filter output and checked for the
relative strength of the IMD to two-tone signals at that frequency.
Disappointingly the gap had narrowed to <40 dB.

My suspicions at this point are:

1. The IMD performance of the 6BA6 RF amp can be improved by an increase in
screen voltage.
2. Increasing the screen voltage of the 6BA6 also increases its gain which
further overloads the 6EJ7 mixer causing its IMD performance to deteriorate
more than the RF amps performance improves.
3. The 6EJ7 mixer is primarily responsible for the IMD problem, probably due
to inappropriate levels of input signal.

Next, I measured the pre-mix injection level at the junction of C31 and T4.
This was a good clean sinewave of 2.1V p.p.  I then switched off the pre-mix
chain by selecting an accesory xtal which wasn't present and measured the
amplitude of my two-tone signal output from the 6BA6 RF amp.  Measured at
the junction of C29, C197 and C30 this was found to be 1.2V p.p.

I am very surprised by this roughly 2:1 ratio and not surprised at the
resulting IMD output.  I feel sure the ratio of pre-mix to received signals
should be much greater.

Next, I monitored the two-tone signals emerging from the 6BA6 RF amp and
reduced their level with the RF gain control until it fell to 0.35V or 350mV
p.p.  At this level the ratio of pre-mix to received signals has increased
from 2:1 to 6:1.

I reconnected my *10 scope probe on the 930 input to the output of the 5645
roofing filter.  Signals at 14100 & 14170 were S9+40.  THe IMD signal on
14030 was audible but not moving the S-meter.  That's 80dB down!

So where do I think I've got to?

1.  I can improve IMD performance of the RF stage by increasing screen
voltage on the 6BA6 RF amp.  That's for later though, as the big problem is
apparently with the 6EJ7 first mixer.

2. There is a problem with the relative amplitude of the inputs to the 6EJ7,
possibly also with their absolute levels.

I have two questions:

1. Is a pre-mix injection level of 2.1V p.p. measured at the junction of T4
and C31 what I should expect?
2. Is an output of 1.2V p.p. from the 6BA6 the expected level from signals
which read S9+45 on the S-meter?

Many thanks for your indulgence, if you've taken the time to read the above.
Any help will be appreciated.

73

Bob, 5B4AGN





--
On Behalf of "Bob Henderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Submissions:drakelist@www.zerobeat.net
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly

[drakelist] R4C

[Carl Schneider]

Yeah, well go to the dentist..
Yesterday the problem was very much 
there, so I decided to talk to you chaps about it
Today I have been on CW for a couple of hours and 
never a peep of complaint out of it..
 
Thank you for comments thus far, and yes I'll keep 
you posted Evan.  I know about the traditional hum, this was aggressive and 
was changing in volume without me touching the AF pot.
 
I've read the "If it ain't broke don't fix it" 
posts.   Was worried that it would take something out with it, 
though.
 
Maurizio, thank you for your welcome.  I'd 
like to contact you off list and swop some Drake nostalgia with 
you.
 
73 to all,  de Carl 
ZS1VT.

[drakelist] R4C

[Carl Schneider]

Hi All
I'm a great listener (reader) of all that appears 
on this list, so while I'm a stranger you are not!  I am a Drake fan of 
long standing, starting out in the 60's with a Drake 2a, then 2b, then TR3 and 
finally R4C # 21609 and T4XC # 24235 both bought new, here in Cape Town.  
Last year I added TR4C # 36398 to my Drake 
HF station.
 
Of late, when working CW with the 'C' line I 
hear a loud hum come up in the ear phones at times, of short duration.  Is 
there any advice for me, before I start taking off the covers?
 
It's a great group you have here and I start my day 
by reading what you folks have to say.  Your comments would be very much 
appreciated.
 
73 Carl ZS1VT (Born 1930 - held call since 
1960)

[drakelist] R4C Who is really best?

[carlobianconi]

This is the fact:
Today arrived my second R4C, the first 
one I have is a s/n 26540 and uses 6EJ7 in the mixers. The second one is a s/n 
19776 and uses 6HS6
I would like to read some opinions about 
the real difference of performance ( if a difference exists) between the two 
revisions
The first, works very well but has the 
chassis largerly corroded, the second is like new but is an older 
revision.
I need to sell or swap one unit, but I 
would be sure that the best one remains in my shack.
Thank you in advance
Carlo Bianconi IK4ISQ 
Italy

Re: [drakelist] R4C agc problem

[Bob Henderson]

Gerry
 
I apologise for the delay in getting back to you 
but I was diverted to some domestic duties :-))
 
All of the components you mention are present in 
this R4C, S/N 24601.  None of the components show any signs of physical 
damage though I confess I haven't gone so far as to remove the ceramic caps to 
confirm they still hold their original values.
 
I confess my only experience with ceramic caps 
going OC was related to physical damage to the cap.  Much more common were 
SC failures due to overvoltage.  Is OC failure due to ageing something 
folks see with these devices?  If there is a real chance that healthy 
looking devices might have gone SC I can remove them to check them 
out.  Though you will know that's no small undertaking.  Meanwhile, 
the addition of a 10 nF ceramic cap across C76 has completely resolved the 
problem with negligible impact on medium and slow agc times.
 
Many thanks.
 
73 Bob, 5B4AGN
 
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Gerry 
  
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Cc: drakelist@zerobeat.net 
  Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 10:00 
  PM
  Subject: RE: [drakelist] R4C agc 
  problem
  
  
  The AGC 
  characteristics of R-4C receivers depends on the version of the receiver. 
  There were at least two that I know of. Furthermore, modifying agc time 
  constant was something that may individuals tried way back when. There were 
  several articles dealing with that subject including one in the March 1980 
  issue of CQ magazine in which the author modified his R-4C to mimic the 
  Collins 75S3-B. Maybe this is because fast, medium, and slow is subjective and 
  everyone has their own idea of what it should be. Nevertheless, the fast AGC 
  position in the stock R-4C is much too fast for my taste and lacks filtering 
  so I added a 0.05 uf capacitor from Q7 collector to ground to suit myself. As 
  it is, the R/C combination of C43 a 0.01uf capacitor and R16, a 1 meg resistor 
  as well as C75 a 0.0024 uf capacitor provide a bare minimum of filtering. If 
  there is motorboating, I would check these components and make sure they are 
  in the circuit and working properly. Additionally, C76 a 0.001 uf capacitor 
  may also be opened. The fast AGC position is meant to be used on CW and 
  possibly AM. It was never intended to be used on SSB. The R-4B agc is a 
  similar design but with different values of gain and time constants. The fact 
  that the R-4C has sharper bandpass IF filters accentuates the 
  problem.
   
  -Original 
  Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  On Behalf Of 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 5:23 
  AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Cc: 
  drakelist@zerobeat.netSubject: Re: [drakelist] R4C agc 
  problem
   
  
  Bob:
  
  I agree 
  with Mark about the AGC issue you have described.  The audio will have a 
  somewhat distorted sound at times when in the fast AGC position.  Slowing 
  the AGC release time down just a bit will resolve that issue.  I 
  personally never use the Fast AGC position. I have owned many Drake receivers 
  over the years and have found this to be common. I doubt you really 
  have a problem.
  
   
  
  73, Don 
  / WA9TGT 

RE: [drakelist] R4C agc problem

[Gerry]

The AGC characteristics
of R-4C receivers depends on the version of the receiver. There were at least
two that I know of. Furthermore, modifying agc time constant was something that
may individuals tried way back when. There were several articles dealing with
that subject including one in the March 1980 issue of CQ magazine in which the
author modified his R-4C to mimic the Collins 75S3-B. Maybe this is because
fast, medium, and slow is subjective and everyone has their own idea of what it
should be. Nevertheless, the fast AGC position in the stock R-4C is much too
fast for my taste and lacks filtering so I added a 0.05 uf capacitor from Q7
collector to ground to suit myself. As it is, the R/C combination of C43 a
0.01uf capacitor and R16, a 1 meg resistor as well as C75 a 0.0024 uf capacitor
provide a bare minimum of filtering. If there is motorboating, I would check
these components and make sure they are in the circuit and working properly. Additionally,
C76 a 0.001 uf capacitor may also be opened. The fast AGC position is meant to
be used on CW and possibly AM. It was never intended to be used on SSB. The
R-4B agc is a similar design but with different values of gain and time
constants. The fact that the R-4C has sharper bandpass IF filters accentuates
the problem.

 

-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 5:23
AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: drakelist@zerobeat.net
Subject: Re: [drakelist] R4C agc
problem

 



Bob:





I agree
with Mark about the AGC issue you have described.  The audio will have a
somewhat distorted sound at times when in the fast AGC position.  Slowing
the AGC release time down just a bit will resolve that issue.  I
personally never use the Fast AGC position. I have owned many Drake receivers
over the years and have found this to be common. I doubt you really
have a problem.





 





73, Don
/ WA9TGT 

Re: [drakelist] R4C agc problem

[Bob Henderson]

"Bob Henderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterance to the drakelist gang
--
Hi Mark & Drake team

Well, I'm not so much new to Drake gear, more of a returnee.  I got my first
Drake receiever a 2B + 2BQ combination about 35 years ago.  Thereafter, I
owned some B-line twins and then a C-line.  I loved my Drake kit but when
Drake exited the ham market I abandoned it in favour of a Kenwood (then Trio
in the UK) TS930.  I've been through a lot of radios since and still have
many of them.  My main station is currently a pair of Ten Tec Orions.  But
the nostalgia effect is at work here (probably I have too much time on my
hands :-)) and I developed a powerful desire to find another C-line to
refurb.  I let my previous C-line go for a song around 20 years ago.  I
often wished I'd hung onto it.

Anyway, back to the agc issue.  I remember what the agc was like on my
previous C-line and it didn't do what this one was doing.  That said I
didn't ever find much utility in the use of the fast setting.  I always used
slow for SSB and either medium or slow for CW.  So I suppose I could have
just ignored this problem and stuck with the medium and slow settings which
were fine.  I guess I haven't done that because I got this radio to refurb
it and that's what I'm gonna do :-)  I'm pretty sure that Garey was on the
button when he said the problems sounded like "motorboating".  As he pointed
out this low frequency instability can often be attributed to inadequate B+
decoupling.  In this case though, no amount of additional decoupling has had
any useful effect.  C76 may be faulty but it's a little difficult to get at
to replace outright, so I tried another 1nF accross it on the track side of
the board, which is easily accesible.  That improved the situation but
didn't cure it.  Increasing the value to 10nF stops the problem dead.  Fast,
medium and slow settings all now sound just like I remember my old C-line
did, so I'm going to count that as a cure and move on to the next thing.  I
don't imagine I will use the fast agc for much as I never did before but
it's nice to have it sound as I remember :-)

Thanks for your help fellas.  It's good to have somewhere to come and
compare notes.

73  Bob, 5B4AGN, P3F
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.5b4agn.net



- Original Message -
From: "Mark V. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Bob Henderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: 
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 1:17 AM
Subject: Re: [drakelist] R4C agc problem


>
> "Mark V. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterance to the drakelist
gang
> --
> Bob and Drake team;
> I too am somewhat new to Drake gear and I found the exact same problem
> with my R4B. I was certain I had a problem with the FAST AGC. Scoped the
> AGC circuit and tried several things then I consulted some colleagues.
> My Drake colleagues told me that copying SSB on fast AGC was going to
> result in this distortion. That fast setting is about 25 msec if I
> recall. Slow AGC is around 750 msec. The manual says to use the SLOW AGC
> for SSB and most CW. The fast setting is for other applications. The net
> of it is, I don't think this is a bug.
>
> Mark V. Johnson VE3DJU/VE3DDI
>
> Bob Henderson wrote:
>
> >"Bob Henderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterance to the drakelist
gang
> >--
> >Hi all
> >
> >I recently picked up an R4C which I'm now checking out.  It's in pretty
good
> >all round condition and for the most part seems to work well.  However, I
> >notice a particular problem with the agc.  If  I set agc to medium or
slow
> >then all appears well but if I select fast the rx sounds awful.  I scoped
> >the af output from the rx and notice that when fast agc is selected, the
> >audio output appears 50% modulated by a ~150 Hz ripple.  It's not
> >immediately obvious to me where that is coming from.
> >
> >Something is clearly not right here.  I wonder if any of you fellas have
> >seen this before?
> >
> >73, Bob, 5B4AGN
> >
> >
> >--
> >On Behalf of "Bob Henderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Submissions:drakelist@www.zerobeat.net
> >Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in
body
> >Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
> >Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
> >Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
> >

Re: [drakelist] R4C agc problem

[Bob Henderson]

Don
 
I probably should have been more specific but this effect in the fast agc 
position was not just a transitional effect.  If I injected a steady 
carrier into the radio from a sig gen and listened with agc set to medium 
or slow, the carrier sounded a nice clean T9 but if I switched to fast it 
adopted a very raspy quality.  At that point I used my scope to 
discover the recovered audio was modulated 50% by a 150 Hz waveform which 
was sawtooth in character.  I then scoped the AGC 1 & 2 lines and found 
sure enough the 150 Hz sawtooth waveform was there.  For what ever reason, 
when set to fast, the agc system was up and oscillating away happily.
 
Post fix, the fast position is still uncomfortable to listen to for both CW 
and SSB but it no longer has the 150 Hz overlay.
 
73
 
Bob, 5B4AGN, P3F
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.5b4agn.net
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Cc: drakelist@zerobeat.net 
  Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 9:22 
AM
  Subject: Re: [drakelist] R4C agc 
  problem
  
  Bob:
  I agree with Mark about the AGC issue you have described.  The audio 
  will have a somewhat distorted sound at times when in the fast AGC 
  position.  Slowing the AGC release time down just a bit will resolve 
  that issue.  I personally never use the Fast AGC position. I have owned 
  many Drake receivers over the years and have found this to 
  be common. I doubt you really have a problem.
   
  73, Don / WA9TGT 

Re: [drakelist] R4C agc problem

[Cfzepp]

Bob:
I agree with Mark about the AGC issue you have described.  The audio 
will have a somewhat distorted sound at times when in the fast AGC 
position.  Slowing the AGC release time down just a bit will resolve 
that issue.  I personally never use the Fast AGC position. I have owned 
many Drake receivers over the years and have found this to 
be common. I doubt you really have a problem.
 
73, Don / WA9TGT 

Re: [drakelist] R4C agc problem

[Mark V. Johnson]

"Mark V. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterance to the drakelist gang
--
Bob and Drake team;
I too am somewhat new to Drake gear and I found the exact same problem 
with my R4B. I was certain I had a problem with the FAST AGC. Scoped the 
AGC circuit and tried several things then I consulted some colleagues. 
My Drake colleagues told me that copying SSB on fast AGC was going to 
result in this distortion. That fast setting is about 25 msec if I 
recall. Slow AGC is around 750 msec. The manual says to use the SLOW AGC 
for SSB and most CW. The fast setting is for other applications. The net 
of it is, I don't think this is a bug.


Mark V. Johnson VE3DJU/VE3DDI

Bob Henderson wrote:


"Bob Henderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterance to the drakelist gang
--
Hi all

I recently picked up an R4C which I'm now checking out.  It's in pretty good
all round condition and for the most part seems to work well.  However, I
notice a particular problem with the agc.  If  I set agc to medium or slow
then all appears well but if I select fast the rx sounds awful.  I scoped
the af output from the rx and notice that when fast agc is selected, the
audio output appears 50% modulated by a ~150 Hz ripple.  It's not
immediately obvious to me where that is coming from.

Something is clearly not right here.  I wonder if any of you fellas have
seen this before?

73, Bob, 5B4AGN


--
On Behalf of "Bob Henderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Submissions:drakelist@www.zerobeat.net
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
--


 



--
On Behalf of "Mark V. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Submissions:drakelist@www.zerobeat.net
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
--

Re: [drakelist] R4C agc problem

[Eric Webner]

It sounds to me, Bob, like you are on the right track. Perhaps the 1nf cap on fast needs replaced. Incidently, I generally don't use fast agc, even on cw. It allows the noise in between characters to come up. Just sounds a little annoying, that's all.
 
Good luck on your R-4C. I need to clean up and align mine, but it seems to work well. Just got a 500 Hz filter to go with 250 Hz, so now I am really ready for cw!
 
73,
 
Eric KA8FAN
Bob Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Bob Henderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>made an utterance to the drakelist gang--Hi GareyI guess you're thinking the problem is 120 Hz from the half wave rectifier.That ocurred to me briefly but in Cyprus we are on 50 Hz and the strangemodulation is at ~150 Hz. This seems rather odd. Nonetheless, I checkedthe bias line and added a further filter cap for good measure just to rulethis out. The problem continued.I looked at the agc time constants and see that for fast there is a 1nF cap,for medium a 47nF in series with 220k is placed in parrallel with it andthen for slow a further 220nF in series with 33k is added in parrallel withboth.The audio sounds clean with medium and slow agc but terrible with fast. Ican't quite work out what's going on just !
now but
 I've put a 10nF cap inparrallel with the 1nF at C76 and the audio cleans right up. I guess thismakes the fast agc position slightly slower than intended but it's still alot faster than the medium setting.I guess this means the problem has gone away, though I haven't worked outwhy it was there in the first place.I guess, if I knew what I was doing, I might be dangerous :-))Thanks.Bob, 5B4AGN- Original Message -From: "Garey Barrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: "Bob Henderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Cc: Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 6:47 PMSubject: Re: [drakelist] R4C agc problem>> Garey Barrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>made an utterance to the drakelistgang> --> Check the filter capacitor for the Bias supply.>> 73, Garey - K4OAH> Atlanta>>
 Drake C-Line Service Manual> >>>> Bob Henderson wrote:>> >"Bob Henderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>made an utterance to the drakelistgang> >--> >Hi all> >> >I recently picked up an R4C which I'm now checking out. It's in prettygood> >all round condition and for the most part seems to work well. However, I> >notice a particular problem with the agc. If I set agc to medium orslow> >then all appears well but if I select fast the rx sounds awful. I scoped> >the af output from the rx and notice that when fast agc is selected, the> >audio output appears 50% modulated by a ~150 Hz ripple. It's not> >immediately obvious to me where that is coming from.> >> >Something is clearly not right here!
. I
 wonder if any of you fellas have> >seen this before?> >> >73, Bob, 5B4AGN> >> >> >> --> On Behalf of Garey Barrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> Submissions: drakelist@www.zerobeat.net> Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist inbody> Hopelessly Lost: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message> Zerobeat Web Page: http://www.zerobeat.net> Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net http://www.tlchost.net/> -->--On Behalf of "Bob Henderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Submissions: drakelist@www.zerobeat.netUnsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in bodyHopelessly Lost: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
obeat.net
 - help in body of messageZerobeat Web Page: http://www.zerobeat.netBrought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net http://www.tlchost.net/--
		Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site!

Re: [drakelist] R4C agc problem

[Bob Henderson]

"Bob Henderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterance to the drakelist gang
--
Hi Garey

I guess you're thinking the problem is 120 Hz from the half wave rectifier.
That ocurred to me briefly but in Cyprus we are on 50 Hz and the strange
modulation is at ~150 Hz.  This seems rather odd.  Nonetheless, I checked
the bias line and added a further filter cap for good measure just to rule
this out.  The problem continued.

I looked at the agc time constants and see that for fast there is a 1nF cap,
for medium a 47nF in series with 220k is placed in parrallel with it and
then for slow a further 220nF in series with 33k is added in parrallel with
both.

The audio sounds clean with medium and slow agc but terrible with fast.  I
can't quite work out what's going on just now but I've put a 10nF cap in
parrallel with the 1nF at C76 and the audio cleans right up.  I guess this
makes the fast agc position slightly slower than intended but it's still a
lot faster than the medium setting.

I guess this means the problem has gone away, though I haven't worked out
why it was there in the first place.

I guess, if I knew what I was doing, I might be dangerous :-))

Thanks.

Bob, 5B4AGN


- Original Message -
From: "Garey Barrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Bob Henderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: 
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 6:47 PM
Subject: Re: [drakelist] R4C agc problem


>
> Garey Barrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterance to the drakelist
gang
> --
> Check the filter capacitor for the Bias supply.
>
> 73, Garey - K4OAH
> Atlanta
>
> Drake C-Line Service Manual
> <http://hr99.home.mindspring.com/R-4C_Servicez/>
>
>
>
> Bob Henderson wrote:
>
> >"Bob Henderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterance to the drakelist
gang
> >--
> >Hi all
> >
> >I recently picked up an R4C which I'm now checking out.  It's in pretty
good
> >all round condition and for the most part seems to work well.  However, I
> >notice a particular problem with the agc.  If  I set agc to medium or
slow
> >then all appears well but if I select fast the rx sounds awful.  I scoped
> >the af output from the rx and notice that when fast agc is selected, the
> >audio output appears 50% modulated by a ~150 Hz ripple.  It's not
> >immediately obvious to me where that is coming from.
> >
> >Something is clearly not right here.  I wonder if any of you fellas have
> >seen this before?
> >
> >73, Bob, 5B4AGN
> >
> >
> >
> --
> On Behalf of Garey Barrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Submissions:drakelist@www.zerobeat.net
> Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in
body
> Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
> Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
> Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
> --
>


--
On Behalf of "Bob Henderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Submissions:drakelist@www.zerobeat.net
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
--

Re: [drakelist] R4C agc problem

[Garey Barrell]

Garey Barrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterance to the drakelist gang
--
Check the filter capacitor for the Bias supply.

73, Garey - K4OAH
Atlanta

Drake C-Line Service Manual
 




Bob Henderson wrote:


"Bob Henderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterance to the drakelist gang
--
Hi all

I recently picked up an R4C which I'm now checking out.  It's in pretty good
all round condition and for the most part seems to work well.  However, I
notice a particular problem with the agc.  If  I set agc to medium or slow
then all appears well but if I select fast the rx sounds awful.  I scoped
the af output from the rx and notice that when fast agc is selected, the
audio output appears 50% modulated by a ~150 Hz ripple.  It's not
immediately obvious to me where that is coming from.

Something is clearly not right here.  I wonder if any of you fellas have
seen this before?

73, Bob, 5B4AGN

 


--
On Behalf of Garey Barrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Submissions:drakelist@www.zerobeat.net
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
--

[drakelist] R4C agc problem

[Bob Henderson]

"Bob Henderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterance to the drakelist gang
--
Hi all

I recently picked up an R4C which I'm now checking out.  It's in pretty good
all round condition and for the most part seems to work well.  However, I
notice a particular problem with the agc.  If  I set agc to medium or slow
then all appears well but if I select fast the rx sounds awful.  I scoped
the af output from the rx and notice that when fast agc is selected, the
audio output appears 50% modulated by a ~150 Hz ripple.  It's not
immediately obvious to me where that is coming from.

Something is clearly not right here.  I wonder if any of you fellas have
seen this before?

73, Bob, 5B4AGN


--
On Behalf of "Bob Henderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Submissions:drakelist@www.zerobeat.net
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
--

Re: [drakelist] R4C value

[Greg]

"Greg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterance to the drakelist gang
--
Thanks for the lengthy reply, 
I guess I'll just stick to my R4B then , or purchase another R4B ...
you can't have too many receivers hehe
I also noticed that changing the components on the antenna side to
more modern metalfilm resistors and fresh ceramic caps gave new life
to the unit.

//Greg

The T-4XB is worth about $150 - 200 and the T-4XC is about $200 - 250, 
both without power supplies.  The AC-4 supply is typically about $100 - 
125.  The only functional difference is the two disk dial on the C and 
the phase lock capability with the R-4C for stable transceive alignment.

The R-4 Series from the R-4 through the R-4B used L-C filters in the IF. 
This type of filter has gentler slopes, which means that nearby signals 
are still heard, just at reduced levels. The R-4C uses crystal filters 
that are steep sided, more like the crystal filters in today's receivers.

Personally, I prefer the L-C filters for all except heavy duty contest 
use. I like to hear what is going on around my frequency, instead of 
"listening with blinders on"...

Up through the R-4B, all filter B/W (400, 1200, 2400 and 4800 @ -6 dB) 
are standard. The R-4C has only the 2.1 kHz filter standard, all others 
are optional, and sell for ~ $50-70 each. The Noise Blanker is standard 
in the B and optional in the C, ~$ 125, and hard to find separately.

ANY 4 series receiver will transceive with ANY 4 series transmitter, mix 
and match. There are minor things like the B line had a neon indicator 
light under the dial to show which PTO was controlling in transceive 
while the C line just turned the dial lamps on or off.  The R-4 and R-4A 
had neither, so you had to look at the switch!

Transceive alignment is more stable in the C, while the B has to be 
"netted" occasionally. The B transceive is more consistent if the 
crystals are "matched", (indicated by the letter at the end of the 
serial numbers, R, B or G,) with same letter on transmitter and receiver.

CW filters for the C are available for 250, 500 and (my favorite), 1800 Hz.
My opinion. The R-4B is probably the best receiver overall for 
day-to-day, casual hamming. It has great audio, smooth AGC, and all the 
filters and noise blanker are built in. The L-C filters are not quite as 
"drop off the table" selective, but I prefer that for casual QSOs.

The R-4C has poorer audio, a little harsher, the "better" (?) crystal 
filters are extra, and the noise blanker is extra. There are aftermarket 
mods to further improve the "single signal in HUGE pileup" operation 
typical of major contest operations. There are also mods to replace the 
tube third mixer with a SS replacement and a replacement audio output 
stage and power supply.

The R-4 and R-4A are just earlier iterations of the R-4B, and are not 
quite as refined, although some say they prefer the early R-4A to the 
R-4B because the tube type product detector in the R-4A is "cleaner".

Mechanically, they are very similar.  The PTO's are identical, with 
minor changes from the R-4 (Tube oscillator) through bipolar transistors 
to FETs.  The dial assemblies are the same through the R-4B.  With 25, 
then 5 kHz marks, with 1 kHz marks on the knob skirt.  For the C, a 
second dial disk was added with 1 kHz marks.  Little or no difference in 
accuracy or resetability.

73, Garey - K4OAH
Atlanta
Drake C-Line Service Manual


Greg wrote:
"Greg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterance to the drakelist gang
--
How much would a T-4XC be worth compared to a R4C (in similar 
condition), I have two T-4XC's and thinking of putting out a trade ad. 
on one of them.
And how does the R4C compare to R4B in audio quality and reception?
I find that I prefer the R4B over my other icom receivers, such clear 
and crisp sound
and almost as sensitive...

//Greg
--
On Behalf of "Greg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Submissions:drakelist@www.zerobeat.net
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
--

Re: [drakelist] R4C Carrier oscillator

[me]

Hams  are asking,Will 
Dayton Hamvention have a Drake Forum this year???
 Yes yes,it will be at 
9:30 on Saturday Morning,same room as last year..
 This will be a 2 hour 
forum,lots of time for questions and answers,plus a speaker on the new upgrades 
to rebuild your ac3 and 4 power supplies...
 This will be the 12 
year for a forum at Dayton.
 Jeff Covelli(wa8saj)and 
Danny(wa4sde)will be running the forum this year..
 Thanks for all your 
interest and support for this great forum at DaytonBe 
there...Don,w8ns

Re: [drakelist] R4C value

[Garey Barrell]

Garey Barrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterance to the drakelist gang
--
The T-4XB is worth about $150 - 200 and the T-4XC is about $200 - 250, 
both without power supplies.  The AC-4 supply is typically about $100 - 
125.  The only functional difference is the two disk dial on the C and 
the phase lock capability with the R-4C for stable transceive alignment.

The R-4 Series from the R-4 through the R-4B used L-C filters in the IF. 
This type of filter has gentler slopes, which means that nearby signals 
are still heard, just at reduced levels. The R-4C uses crystal filters 
that are steep sided, more like the crystal filters in today's receivers.

Personally, I prefer the L-C filters for all except heavy duty contest 
use. I like to hear what is going on around my frequency, instead of 
"listening with blinders on"...

Up through the R-4B, all filter B/W (400, 1200, 2400 and 4800 @ -6 dB) 
are standard. The R-4C has only the 2.1 kHz filter standard, all others 
are optional, and sell for ~ $50-70 each. The Noise Blanker is standard 
in the B and optional in the C, ~$ 125, and hard to find separately.

ANY 4 series receiver will transceive with ANY 4 series transmitter, mix 
and match. There are minor things like the B line had a neon indicator 
light under the dial to show which PTO was controlling in transceive 
while the C line just turned the dial lamps on or off.  The R-4 and R-4A 
had neither, so you had to look at the switch!

Transceive alignment is more stable in the C, while the B has to be 
"netted" occasionally. The B transceive is more consistent if the 
crystals are "matched", (indicated by the letter at the end of the 
serial numbers, R, B or G,) with same letter on transmitter and receiver.

CW filters for the C are available for 250, 500 and (my favorite), 1800 Hz.
My opinion. The R-4B is probably the best receiver overall for 
day-to-day, casual hamming. It has great audio, smooth AGC, and all the 
filters and noise blanker are built in. The L-C filters are not quite as 
"drop off the table" selective, but I prefer that for casual QSOs.

The R-4C has poorer audio, a little harsher, the "better" (?) crystal 
filters are extra, and the noise blanker is extra. There are aftermarket 
mods to further improve the "single signal in HUGE pileup" operation 
typical of major contest operations. There are also mods to replace the 
tube third mixer with a SS replacement and a replacement audio output 
stage and power supply.

The R-4 and R-4A are just earlier iterations of the R-4B, and are not 
quite as refined, although some say they prefer the early R-4A to the 
R-4B because the tube type product detector in the R-4A is "cleaner".

Mechanically, they are very similar.  The PTO's are identical, with 
minor changes from the R-4 (Tube oscillator) through bipolar transistors 
to FETs.  The dial assemblies are the same through the R-4B.  With 25, 
then 5 kHz marks, with 1 kHz marks on the knob skirt.  For the C, a 
second dial disk was added with 1 kHz marks.  Little or no difference in 
accuracy or resetability.

73, Garey - K4OAH
Atlanta
Drake C-Line Service Manual


Greg wrote:
"Greg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterance to the drakelist gang
--
How much would a T-4XC be worth compared to a R4C (in similar 
condition), I have two T-4XC's and thinking of putting out a trade ad. 
on one of them.
And how does the R4C compare to R4B in audio quality and reception?
I find that I prefer the R4B over my other icom receivers, such clear 
and crisp sound
and almost as sensitive...

//Greg
--
On Behalf of Garey Barrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Submissions:drakelist@www.zerobeat.net
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
--

[drakelist] R4C value

[Greg]

"Greg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterance to the drakelist gang
--
How much would a T-4XC be worth compared to a R4C (in similar condition), 
I have two T-4XC's and thinking of putting out a trade ad. on one of them.
And how does the R4C compare to R4B in audio quality and reception?
I find that I prefer the R4B over my other icom receivers, such clear and crisp sound
and almost as sensitive...

//Greg
--
On Behalf of "Greg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Submissions:drakelist@www.zerobeat.net
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
--

[drakelist] R4C Carrier oscillator

[carlobianconi]

Hallo, I hope that someone has ideas to 
solve a problem that is driving me crazy!
The facts:
I switch on my R4C ( s/n 26174)  and 
the carrier osc. don't work in AM position (5595 Kc.), and in SSB position (5645 
Kc.). It works perfectly in the three cw positions ( 5645 Kc. again!) After some 
minutes, the AM starts to work, and if I go to the CW1,5 position and then back 
to SSB, the oscillator works right... but only if i go first in one of the CW 
positions. Of course the contacts of the mode switch seems OK , I've tried to 
bridge the contacts of the 5645 section, but nothing... After another 
warm-up period, everything is OK and steady. Im becoming to think that the 
problem isn't in the oscillator board, but I can't find a relationship with 
other things... Another clue: when the oscillator behaves " crazy" , if i can 
have oscillation in SSB position and then put the radio in stand-by, the 
oscillation goes off, while in normal situation the oscillator is on also in 
stand-by position.
The strange thing is that in ssb, 
cw1,2,3, the xtal is the same, and the mode switch just connects it to the FET, 
so, if it works in cw1,2,3, why not in SSB.
Some bugaboo is hidden in my 
radio?
Thanks for a possible answer from Carlo 
Bianconi, IK4ISQ   Italy

[drakelist] R4C BFO feedthrough

[R March]

"R March" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterence to the drakelist gang
--
I have an R4C that has substantial BFO feedthrough problems.  As one tunes
the pass band tuning through center frequency, the s- meter goes up to about
s-9.  Re-tuning the last IF transformer drops the feedthrough almost to
acceptable levels, but of course the system gain is diminished when doing
so.  I wonder if anyone has experienced this problem and has a suggestion to
remedy it.  Thanks,  Bob

--
On Behalf of "R March" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Submissions:drakelist@www.zerobeat.net
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
--

RE: [drakelist] R4C DC Power supply Board

[Carel, PA0CMU]

"Carel, PA0CMU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterence to the drakelist gang
--
Kevin,
I should have one spare somewhere because I improved the power supply unit 
and the audio amplifier. Consider that improvement as developed by Howard 
Sartori, W5DA to reduce heat and better filtering. Read this info: 
http://www.mods.dk/view.php?ArticleId=2551

Carel - PA0CMU.
_
Gebruik MSN Webmessenger op je werk en op school 
http://webmessenger.msn.com/

--
On Behalf of "Carel, PA0CMU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Submissions:drakelist@www.zerobeat.net
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
--

[drakelist] R4C DC Power supply Board

[Kevin Gray]

Looking for a substitution part for Q2 (Ep-487)

 

Any help appreciated.


Thanks,

 

Kevin  Gray

 

 

Re: [drakelist] R4C xtal bank bad

[Eric Webner]

Garey,
 
Yes, it is a T-4XC. 
 
Eric
Garey Barrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Eric -A pot is easier, then put in the nearest standard value. You can use 5% carbon film resistors which are usually MUCH more accurate than that, selecting one from a group if available and necessary. Again, the meter is no precision device, but it is pretty repeatable at a single point.I have a little test box with a 10 turn pot and Bourns 10 turn counter dial so I can set it and read the resistance right off the dial. Most are in the 100 - 300 ohm range.Just to be sure, we are talking about a T-4XC, correct.? There have been several transmitter threads lately! :-) The reason I'm asking is the T-4XB used a 2.7 ohm resistor.73, Garey - K4OAHAtlantaDrake C-Line Service ManualEric Webner wrote:> Garey,> > I feel t!
hat I've
 got a good handle on this radio, and thank you for > your support. Once I get a 3.3 ohm resistor in there, however, and > assuming the meter series resistor no longer sets up an accurate 100 > ma reading, is there a way to calculate the proper resistance, or is > it just easier to wire in a pot temporarily to figure out the correct > value?> > 73,> > Eric KA8FAN>> *//*>> 
		Do you Yahoo!? 
The all-new My Yahoo! – What will yours do?

Re: [drakelist] R4C xtal bank bad

[Garey Barrell]

Garey Barrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterence to the drakelist gang
--
Yep, R-58.  Marked "value selected in production" and physically located 
on the slide switch linked to the Meter button on the front panel.

73, Garey - K4OAH
Atlanta
Drake C-Line Service Manual


Eric Webner wrote:
Hello all,
 
(I thought that I ought to clarify that I am now referring to the 
resistor in series with the meter, R58. I didn't say that too clearly 
in my previous post.)
 
"I feel that I've got a good handle on this radio, and thank you for 
your support. Once I get a 3.3 ohm resistor in there, however, and 
assuming the meter series resistor no longer sets up an accurate 100 
ma reading, is there a way to calculate the proper *series meter* 
resistance, or is it just easier to wire in a pot temporarily to 
figure out the correct value?"
 
73,
 

--
On Behalf of Garey Barrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Submissions:drakelist@www.zerobeat.net
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
--

Re: [drakelist] R4C xtal bank bad

[Garey Barrell]

Garey Barrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterence to the drakelist gang
--
Eric -
A pot is easier, then put in the nearest standard value.  You can use 5% 
carbon film resistors which are usually MUCH more accurate than that, 
selecting one from a group if available and necessary.   Again, the 
meter is no precision device, but it is pretty repeatable at a single point.

I have a little test box with a 10 turn pot and Bourns 10 turn counter 
dial so I can set it and read the resistance right off the dial.  Most 
are in the 100 - 300 ohm range.

Just to be sure, we are talking about a T-4XC, correct.?   There have 
been several transmitter threads lately!  :-)   The reason I'm asking is 
the T-4XB used a 2.7 ohm resistor.

73, Garey - K4OAH
Atlanta
Drake C-Line Service Manual


Eric Webner wrote:
Garey,
 
I feel that I've got a good handle on this radio, and thank you for 
your support. Once I get a 3.3 ohm resistor in there, however, and 
assuming the meter series resistor no longer sets up an accurate 100 
ma reading, is there a way to calculate the proper resistance, or is 
it just easier to wire in a pot temporarily to figure out the correct 
value?
 
73,
 
Eric KA8FAN

*//*

--
On Behalf of Garey Barrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Submissions:drakelist@www.zerobeat.net
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
--

[drakelist] Re: new Re: Claas C operation of 6jb6 finals for CW € old Re: [drakelist] R4C xtal bank bad

[Garey Barrell]

Garey Barrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterence to the drakelist gang
--
Pierre -
This has been suggested before.  There is a single reason to DO it, and 
several to NOT do it.

The reason to DO it (start optimistically, right?) is that it increases 
the efficiency of the final stage because of the higher efficiency of 
Class C operation over AB1, PLUS it reduces the total efficiency of the 
stage by eliminating the "between elements" dissipation of the "idling" 
bias.  Great!

Reasons NOT to do it.
1.  The bias supply as designed can't provide a negative enough bias to 
reach Class C.  Not enough voltage.  Partial "self-bias" could be used, 
but...

2.  The bias supply voltage is used elsewhere in the transmitter, so you 
would have to separate the final grid bias from that circuitry.

3.  Class C operation of an amplifier tends to have very sharp "on and 
off" transitions, leading to "clicks", worsening any existing clicks 
from driver stages AND generating some of it's own.  Old-time Class C 
stages usually had some sort of "shaping" applied to driver stages to 
give a "soft" keying characteristic that was "sharpened up" by the final.

4.  These same sharp transitions also result in a higher level of 
spurious and harmonic generation by the final stage, tolerated under the 
old regulations for "purity of emissions", later filtered by additional 
circuitry to keep them in accordance with tighter specifications.

So.   Overall, I wouldn't recommend it.   The increase in output power 
isn't all that great, (perhaps 10% "real world" increase,) and the 
reduction in dissipation / heat can be more than compensated by a small fan.

73, Garey - K4OAH
Atlanta
Drake C-Line Service Manual


F3WT wrote:
Hi Garey:
I find this exchanges very very interesting also for  a TR4!
Now I wonder abt the following:
I run only CW and would like to bias for class C operation  those finals as
I did once for my home - made CW Xmter which has a couple of  807's.
Ever tried this on a TR4/T4Xany?
I presume the bias just  to be set to further  below -60V so that at least
iddle Anode current become zero.
But  more precisely  what is the exact class C polarization ( bias) of the
6JB6 finals?
TU!
Vy 73
Pierre.
F3WT
- 
 

--
On Behalf of Garey Barrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Submissions:drakelist@www.zerobeat.net
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
--

Re: [drakelist] R4C xtal bank bad

[Eric Webner]

Hello all,
 
(I thought that I ought to clarify that I am now referring to the resistor in series with the meter, R58. I didn't say that too clearly in my previous post.)
 
"I feel that I've got a good handle on this radio, and thank you for your support. Once I get a 3.3 ohm resistor in there, however, and assuming the meter series resistor no longer sets up an accurate 100 ma reading, is there a way to calculate the proper series meter resistance, or is it just easier to wire in a pot temporarily to figure out the correct value?"
 
73,
 Garey Barrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Eric Webner wrote:> Garey,> > Several weeks ago when I discovered the play in one of the bandswitch > wafers, I set the wafer where it should be and used adhesive on the > inner wafer and shaft. It appears to work very well, and with no > binding. I wouldn't recommend that for all the wafers, but just one > seemed ok.> > Regarding my low output, I may be ok. First of all, I was not loading > it to full power, since one of the errata sheets that Drake put out > said to load it for only 340 mA in order to avoid any spurious output. > After reading your latest message, I loaded 80 and 40 meters to full > power, obtaining 135-140 watts measured on my Bird wattmeter. Loading > it to full power ran the plate current to 500 mA!A plate current reading of 500 mA tells !
you that
 your 3.3 ohm meter shunt has gone up in value. Probably to about 5.6 ohms! :-)> > I also took your suggestion and checked a few components. R44, the 680 > ohm resistor, is good. The cathode resistors are good and very well > balanced. The screen resistors checked out as well. However, the > resistor across the meter measured 5.6 ohms. I disconnected one end > from the circuit board and the resistor snapped in half. I couldn't > come up with another one, so I hope to try a 2.2 ohm unit (measures > around 2.6) so I can get on the air this weekend.That will "work", but you really need to replace it with a 3.3 ohm unit. For "emergency" purposes, you can measure the 2.6 as accurately as you can. then adjust the bias voltage for 100 mA of current through that resistor by measuring the voltage drop across said resistor as accurately as possible. Then note the reading that gives you on the p!
late
 meter. If it reads 50 mA (or whatever) that becomes your "bias adjust" setting for the finals. Then just Tune and Load for maximum output, using the plate meter to adjust for minimum plate current.Then, when you get a "real" 3.3 ohm resistor in there, again accurately measure 100 mA through that resistor and pick a "select at test" resistor to make your meter read 100 mA. I wouldn't worry too much about the "340 mA limit", since the meter isn't that accurate anyway. The only way to determine the "cleanest" operating point is with a spectrum analyzer, and it just isn't that critical. If you're driving a 5 KW amplifier then you need to worry about it.> > Do you recommend that I vary the other resistor in order to achieve > accuracy on the meter, or can I play around with values on the shunt > resistor (the 3.3 ohm resistor)?> See above.> One other observation: my low power output!
 could be
 attributed to this > meter shunt resistor being off, as that would cause me to back off on > the loading quite a bit. This is also why I didn't want to load it to > full power (500 ma???) for fear of melting a couple sweep tubes. It > also makes me wonder about my bias. Is there a voltage one should > shoot for, or is getting the bias (idling) current still the > preferable approach? Do I need to realign everything if I need to > reset the bias?> This is exactly the case. When you thought you were loading to 340 mA, you were probably only drawing 150 mA, resulting in low output. THE MOST IMPORTANT CURRENT READING IS THE BIAS SETTING. This is why you "calibrate" the metering circuit at 100 mA. These meters only cost about $1.25 and are NOT highly accurate, linear meters. So we make a "reference" point for the _important_ meter reading and use it as an "indicator" only for the far less imp!
ortant
 absolute plate current reading at full power.73, Garey - K4OAHAtlanta
		Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more.

Re: [drakelist] R4C xtal bank bad

[Eric Webner]

Garey,
 
I feel that I've got a good handle on this radio, and thank you for your support. Once I get a 3.3 ohm resistor in there, however, and assuming the meter series resistor no longer sets up an accurate 100 ma reading, is there a way to calculate the proper resistance, or is it just easier to wire in a pot temporarily to figure out the correct value?
 
73,
 
Eric KA8FANGarey Barrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Eric Webner wrote:> Garey,> > Several weeks ago when I discovered the play in one of the bandswitch > wafers, I set the wafer where it should be and used adhesive on the > inner wafer and shaft. It appears to work very well, and with no > binding. I wouldn't recommend that for all the wafers, but just one > seemed ok.> > Regarding my low output, I may be ok. First of all, I was not loading > it to full power, since one of the errata sheets that Drake put out > said to load it for only 340 mA in order to avoid any spurious output. > After reading your latest message, I loaded 80 and 40 meters to full > power, obtaining 135-140 watts measured on my Bird wattmeter. Loading > it to full power ran the plate current to 500 mA!A plate current reading of 500 mA tells !
you that
 your 3.3 ohm meter shunt has gone up in value. Probably to about 5.6 ohms! :-)> > I also took your suggestion and checked a few components. R44, the 680 > ohm resistor, is good. The cathode resistors are good and very well > balanced. The screen resistors checked out as well. However, the > resistor across the meter measured 5.6 ohms. I disconnected one end > from the circuit board and the resistor snapped in half. I couldn't > come up with another one, so I hope to try a 2.2 ohm unit (measures > around 2.6) so I can get on the air this weekend.That will "work", but you really need to replace it with a 3.3 ohm unit. For "emergency" purposes, you can measure the 2.6 as accurately as you can. then adjust the bias voltage for 100 mA of current through that resistor by measuring the voltage drop across said resistor as accurately as possible. Then note the reading that gives you on the p!
late
 meter. If it reads 50 mA (or whatever) that becomes your "bias adjust" setting for the finals. Then just Tune and Load for maximum output, using the plate meter to adjust for minimum plate current.Then, when you get a "real" 3.3 ohm resistor in there, again accurately measure 100 mA through that resistor and pick a "select at test" resistor to make your meter read 100 mA. I wouldn't worry too much about the "340 mA limit", since the meter isn't that accurate anyway. The only way to determine the "cleanest" operating point is with a spectrum analyzer, and it just isn't that critical. If you're driving a 5 KW amplifier then you need to worry about it.> > Do you recommend that I vary the other resistor in order to achieve > accuracy on the meter, or can I play around with values on the shunt > resistor (the 3.3 ohm resistor)?> See above.> One other observation: my low power output!
 could be
 attributed to this > meter shunt resistor being off, as that would cause me to back off on > the loading quite a bit. This is also why I didn't want to load it to > full power (500 ma???) for fear of melting a couple sweep tubes. It > also makes me wonder about my bias. Is there a voltage one should > shoot for, or is getting the bias (idling) current still the > preferable approach? Do I need to realign everything if I need to > reset the bias?> This is exactly the case. When you thought you were loading to 340 mA, you were probably only drawing 150 mA, resulting in low output. THE MOST IMPORTANT CURRENT READING IS THE BIAS SETTING. This is why you "calibrate" the metering circuit at 100 mA. These meters only cost about $1.25 and are NOT highly accurate, linear meters. So we make a "reference" point for the _important_ meter reading and use it as an "indicator" only for the far less imp!
ortant
 absolute plate current reading at full power.73, Garey - K4OAHAtlanta
		Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

[drakelist] new Re: Claas C operation of 6jb6 finals for CW € old Re: [drakelist] R4C xtal bank bad

[F3WT]

F3WT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterence to the drakelist gang
--
Hi Garey:

I find this exchanges very very interesting also for  a TR4!

 Now I wonder abt the following:
 I run only CW and would like to bias for class C operation  those finals as
I did once for my home - made CW Xmter which has a couple of  807's.
Ever tried this on a TR4/T4Xany?
I presume the bias just  to be set to further  below -60V so that at least
iddle Anode current become zero.
But  more precisely  what is the exact class C polarization ( bias) of the
6JB6 finals?

TU!

Vy 73
 Pierre.
F3WT
- 
le 13/02/05 6:49, Garey Barrell à [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :

> 
> Garey Barrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterence to the drakelist gang
> --
> 
> 
> Eric Webner wrote:
> 
>> Garey,
>> 
>> Several weeks ago when I discovered the play in one of the bandswitch
>> wafers, I set the wafer where it should be and used adhesive  on the
>> inner wafer and shaft. It appears to work very well, and with no
>> binding. I wouldn't recommend that for all the wafers, but just one
>> seemed ok.
>> 
>> Regarding my low output, I may be ok. First of all, I was not loading
>> it to full power, since one of the errata sheets that Drake put out
>> said to load it for only 340 mA in order to avoid any spurious output.
>> After reading your latest message, I loaded 80 and 40 meters to full
>> power, obtaining 135-140 watts measured on my Bird wattmeter. Loading
>> it to full power ran the plate current to 500 mA!
> 
> A plate current reading of 500 mA tells you that your 3.3 ohm meter
> shunt has gone up in value.  Probably to about 5.6 ohms!  :-)
> 
>> 
>> I also took your suggestion and checked a few components. R44, the 680
>> ohm resistor, is good. The cathode resistors are good and very well
>> balanced. The screen resistors checked out as well. However, the
>> resistor across the meter measured 5.6 ohms. I disconnected one end
>> from the circuit board and the resistor snapped in half. I couldn't
>> come up with another one, so I hope to try a 2.2 ohm unit (measures
>> around 2.6) so I can get on the air this weekend.
> 
> That will "work", but you really need to replace it with a 3.3 ohm
> unit.  For "emergency" purposes, you can measure the 2.6 as accurately
> as you can. then adjust the bias voltage for 100 mA of current through
> that resistor by measuring the voltage drop across said resistor as
> accurately as possible.  Then note the reading that gives you on the
> plate meter.  If it reads 50 mA (or whatever) that becomes your "bias
> adjust" setting for the finals.  Then just Tune and Load for maximum
> output, using the plate meter to adjust for minimum plate current.
> 
> Then, when you get a "real" 3.3 ohm resistor in there, again accurately
> measure 100 mA through that resistor and pick a "select at test"
> resistor to make your meter read 100 mA.  I wouldn't worry too much
> about the "340 mA limit", since the meter isn't that accurate anyway.
> The only way to determine the "cleanest" operating point is with a
> spectrum analyzer, and it just isn't that critical.  If you're driving a
> 5 KW amplifier then you need to worry about it.
> 
>> 
>> Do you recommend that I vary the other resistor in order to achieve
>> accuracy on the meter, or can I play around with values on the shunt
>> resistor (the 3.3 ohm resistor)?
>> 
> 
> See above.
> 
>> One other observation: my low power output could be attributed to this
>> meter shunt resistor being off, as that would cause me to back off on
>> the loading quite a bit. This is also why I didn't want to load it to
>> full power (500 ma???) for fear of melting a couple sweep tubes. It
>> also makes me wonder about my bias. Is there a voltage one should
>> shoot for, or is getting the bias (idling) current still the
>> preferable approach? Do I need to realign everything if I need to
>> reset the bias?
>> 
> 
> This is exactly the case.  When you thought you were loading to 340 mA,
> you were probably only drawing 150 mA, resulting in low  output.   THE
> MOST IMPORTANT CURRENT READING IS THE BIAS SETTING.  This is why you
> "calibrate" the metering circuit at 100 mA.  These meters only cost
> about $1.25 and are NOT highly accurate, linear meters.  So we make a
> "reference" point for the  _important_  meter reading and use it as an
> "indicator" only for the far less important absolute plate current
> reading at full power.
> 
> 73, Garey - K4OAH
> Atlanta
> 
> --
> On Behalf of Garey Barrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Submissions:drakelist@www.zerobeat.net
> Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
> Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
> Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
> Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tl

Re: [drakelist] R4C xtal bank bad

[Garey Barrell]

Garey Barrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterence to the drakelist gang
--
Eric Webner wrote:
Garey,
 
Several weeks ago when I discovered the play in one of the bandswitch 
wafers, I set the wafer where it should be and used adhesive  on the 
inner wafer and shaft. It appears to work very well, and with no 
binding. I wouldn't recommend that for all the wafers, but just one 
seemed ok.
 
Regarding my low output, I may be ok. First of all, I was not loading 
it to full power, since one of the errata sheets that Drake put out 
said to load it for only 340 mA in order to avoid any spurious output. 
After reading your latest message, I loaded 80 and 40 meters to full 
power, obtaining 135-140 watts measured on my Bird wattmeter. Loading 
it to full power ran the plate current to 500 mA!
A plate current reading of 500 mA tells you that your 3.3 ohm meter 
shunt has gone up in value.  Probably to about 5.6 ohms!  :-)

 
I also took your suggestion and checked a few components. R44, the 680 
ohm resistor, is good. The cathode resistors are good and very well 
balanced. The screen resistors checked out as well. However, the 
resistor across the meter measured 5.6 ohms. I disconnected one end 
from the circuit board and the resistor snapped in half. I couldn't 
come up with another one, so I hope to try a 2.2 ohm unit (measures 
around 2.6) so I can get on the air this weekend.
That will "work", but you really need to replace it with a 3.3 ohm 
unit.  For "emergency" purposes, you can measure the 2.6 as accurately 
as you can. then adjust the bias voltage for 100 mA of current through 
that resistor by measuring the voltage drop across said resistor as 
accurately as possible.  Then note the reading that gives you on the 
plate meter.  If it reads 50 mA (or whatever) that becomes your "bias 
adjust" setting for the finals.  Then just Tune and Load for maximum 
output, using the plate meter to adjust for minimum plate current.

Then, when you get a "real" 3.3 ohm resistor in there, again accurately 
measure 100 mA through that resistor and pick a "select at test" 
resistor to make your meter read 100 mA.  I wouldn't worry too much 
about the "340 mA limit", since the meter isn't that accurate anyway.  
The only way to determine the "cleanest" operating point is with a 
spectrum analyzer, and it just isn't that critical.  If you're driving a 
5 KW amplifier then you need to worry about it.

 
Do you recommend that I vary the other resistor in order to achieve 
accuracy on the meter, or can I play around with values on the shunt 
resistor (the 3.3 ohm resistor)?
 
See above.
One other observation: my low power output could be attributed to this 
meter shunt resistor being off, as that would cause me to back off on 
the loading quite a bit. This is also why I didn't want to load it to 
full power (500 ma???) for fear of melting a couple sweep tubes. It 
also makes me wonder about my bias. Is there a voltage one should 
shoot for, or is getting the bias (idling) current still the 
preferable approach? Do I need to realign everything if I need to 
reset the bias?
 
This is exactly the case.  When you thought you were loading to 340 mA, 
you were probably only drawing 150 mA, resulting in low  output.   THE 
MOST IMPORTANT CURRENT READING IS THE BIAS SETTING.  This is why you 
"calibrate" the metering circuit at 100 mA.  These meters only cost 
about $1.25 and are NOT highly accurate, linear meters.  So we make a 
"reference" point for the  _important_  meter reading and use it as an 
"indicator" only for the far less important absolute plate current 
reading at full power.

73, Garey - K4OAH
Atlanta
--
On Behalf of Garey Barrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Submissions:drakelist@www.zerobeat.net
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
--

Re: [drakelist] R4C xtal bank bad

[Eric Webner]

Garey,
 
Several weeks ago when I discovered the play in one of the bandswitch wafers, I set the wafer where it should be and used adhesive  on the inner wafer and shaft. It appears to work very well, and with no binding. I wouldn't recommend that for all the wafers, but just one seemed ok.
 
Regarding my low output, I may be ok. First of all, I was not loading it to full power, since one of the errata sheets that Drake put out said to load it for only 340 mA in order to avoid any spurious output. After reading your latest message, I loaded 80 and 40 meters to full power, obtaining 135-140 watts measured on my Bird wattmeter. Loading it to full power ran the plate current to 500 mA!
 
I also took your suggestion and checked a few components. R44, the 680 ohm resistor, is good. The cathode resistors are good and very well balanced. The screen resistors checked out as well. However, the resistor across the meter measured 5.6 ohms. I disconnected one end from the circuit board and the resistor snapped in half. I couldn't come up with another one, so I hope to try a 2.2 ohm unit (measures around 2.6) so I can get on the air this weekend.
 
Do you recommend that I vary the other resistor in order to achieve accuracy on the meter, or can I play around with values on the shunt resistor (the 3.3 ohm resistor)?
 
One other observation: my low power output could be attributed to this meter shunt resistor being off, as that would cause me to back off on the loading quite a bit. This is also why I didn't want to load it to full power (500 ma???) for fear of melting a couple sweep tubes. It also makes me wonder about my bias. Is there a voltage one should shoot for, or is getting the bias (idling) current still the preferable approach? Do I need to realign everything if I need to reset the bias?
 
OK, enough questions for now. Thanks for all the good responses!
 
73,
 
Eric KA8FAN
Garey Barrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Eric -There isn't a "good" way to correct the wafer "play" once it occurs, short of wafer replacement. I have seen some with very thin Teflon? tape wrapped around the shaft that seemed to work. I saw one where someone had cut small pieces of brass shim stock, carved out the hole, and epoxied them to the wafer. Inexpensive, but highly labor intensive! :-)The Load control should be in the 2.5 - 4.5 range for a non-reactive 50 ohm load. The Plate control should be in the 3 - 8 range. As long as a "dip" can be achieved, it doesn't really matter.Your power output is very low. If you load for maximum output, you should get 130 plus watts out on 80 - 20 in Tune position, 150 -160 watts in CW. Power that low is most likely from weak finals. With "new finals", you probably have an alignment problem. If you have done t!
he
 alignment, check the 680 ohm resistor at R44, (located under T7, just at the end of the final feedthrough panel under the chassis,) especially if you did the alignment with a metal screwdriver. Shorting the alignment caps to the chassis, hard not to do with a metal screwdriver in those little holes, will damage this resistor. With regard to the plate current, this is most often a result of a meter shunt resistor that has gone up in value. This is a 3.3 ohm resistor on a small board under the chassis near the relay. The 'best" way to correct this is to replace it with a 1W (the original is 1/2W) carbon film resistor. At the same time, check the 15 ohm 1W cathode resistors for the final tubes. They should be close to 15 ohms, (+/- 5%) and closer to each other, (2%). Best replacements are Ohmite OY ceramic composition, although the carbon film types seem to work fine. If you haven't already, check the screen resistors for the!
 finals
 as well.After you replace the 3.3 ohm resistor, it is best to measure it's actual resistance and the voltage drop across it with an accurate DMM to determine the "actual" plate current, then use this information to verify that the Plate meter is measuring accurately at 100 mA. The meter is not great, and not highly linear. The 100 mA point is most important since that is what you use to set the bias for the final. If it is NOT accurately reading at 100 mA, you will have to reselect the resistor marked (select at test) which is mounted on the slide switch linked to the meter switch between the Plate and Load controls. It's usually around 200 ohms, but can be anything from 47 to 360 ohms.The 50-123 knob will work, but you'll be amazed at how it's "difference" sticks out. Of course it will bother YOU much more than anyone else! Same phenomenon as that little paint slip on the wall in the living room. No one else e!
ver sees
 it, but its the first thing you see every time you walk into the room!! :-)73, Garey - K4OAHAtlantaDrake C-Line Service ManualEric Webner wrote:> Garey et al,> > I appreciate your comments. Perhaps I did a little too much work on my > T-4XC.> > I just finished restoring my transmitter, and during my work I found a > few problems with wafer misali

Re: [drakelist] R4C xtal bank bad

[Garey Barrell]

Garey Barrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterence to the drakelist gang
--
Eric -
There isn't a "good" way to correct the wafer "play" once it occurs, 
short of wafer replacement.  I have seen some with very thin Teflon? 
tape wrapped around the shaft that seemed to work.  I saw one where 
someone had cut small pieces of brass shim stock, carved out the hole, 
and epoxied them to the wafer.   Inexpensive, but highly labor 
intensive!  :-)

The Load control should be in the 2.5 - 4.5 range for a non-reactive 50 
ohm load.   The Plate control should be in the 3 - 8 range.  As long as 
a "dip" can be achieved, it doesn't really matter.

Your power output is very low.  If you load for maximum output, you 
should get 130 plus watts out on 80 - 20 in Tune position, 150 -160 
watts in CW.   Power that low is most likely from weak finals.  With 
"new finals", you probably have an alignment problem.  If you have done 
the alignment, check the 680 ohm resistor at R44, (located under T7, 
just at the end of the final feedthrough panel under the chassis,) 
especially if you did the alignment with a metal screwdriver.  Shorting 
the alignment caps to the chassis, hard not to do with a metal 
screwdriver in those little holes, will damage this resistor.   With 
regard to the plate current, this is most often a result of a meter 
shunt resistor that has gone up in value.  This is a 3.3 ohm resistor on 
a small board under the chassis near the relay.  The 'best" way to 
correct this is to replace it with a 1W (the original is 1/2W) carbon 
film resistor.  At the same time, check the 15 ohm 1W cathode resistors 
for the final tubes.  They should be close to 15 ohms,  (+/- 5%) and 
closer to each other, (2%).   Best replacements are Ohmite OY ceramic 
composition, although the carbon film types seem to work fine.  If you 
haven't already, check the screen resistors for the finals as well.

After you replace the 3.3 ohm resistor, it is best to measure it's 
actual resistance and the voltage drop across it with an accurate DMM to 
determine the "actual" plate current, then use this information to 
verify that the Plate meter is measuring accurately at 100 mA.  The 
meter is not great, and not highly linear.  The 100 mA point is most 
important since that is what you use to set the bias for the final.  If 
it is NOT accurately reading at 100 mA, you will have to reselect the 
resistor marked (select at test) which is mounted on the slide switch 
linked to the meter switch between the Plate and Load controls.  It's 
usually around 200 ohms, but can be anything from 47 to 360 ohms.

The 50-123 knob will work, but you'll be amazed at how it's "difference" 
sticks out.  Of course it will bother YOU much more than anyone else!   
Same phenomenon as that little paint slip on the wall in the living 
room.  No one else ever sees it, but its the first thing you see every 
time you walk into the room!!  :-)

73, Garey - K4OAH
Atlanta
Drake C-Line Service Manual


Eric Webner wrote:
Garey et al,
 
I appreciate your comments. Perhaps I did a little too much work on my 
T-4XC.
 
I just finished restoring my transmitter, and during my work I found a 
few problems with wafer misalignment and too much "play" on certain 
wafers. Can you comment on the best ways to correct these problems?
 
I would also like to know what typical settings for plate and load 
controls should be when loading into a dummy load. I have never owned 
a working C-line before, so I am not sure what "normal" is. Suffice it 
to say, I believe my plate control is turned relatively high. I just 
about "run out of room" on 10 meters.
 
Also, what kind of output power should I be getting. When I follow the 
tuning procedure given in an errata sheet indicating that I should 
limit my plate current to 340 mA in order to meet FCC regs, I only get 
about 85 watts out on 80 and 40 meters. When loading to full power, 
what is the maximum plate current I can load to without melting my new 
finals?
 
For those of us that were discussing how to obtain knobs for the 
Drake: I called Caltronix today and they confirmed that the 50-133 
knob is only available from the manufacturer if they buy 500 pieces. 
They are looking for another vendor who will sell in more reasonable 
quantities. In the meantime, they have available the 50-123 knob, 
which is 1.04" in diameter vs. the 50-133, which is 0.93" diameter. 
Has anybody had any luck with other vendors? I still need to replace 
one knob.
 
I hope to chat with you guys this Sunday during the CE Contest.
 
73,
 
Eric KA8FAN


--
On Behalf of Garey Barrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Submissions:drakelist@www.zerobeat.net
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubs

Re: [drakelist] R4C xtal bank bad

[Eric Webner]

Garey et al,
 
I appreciate your comments. Perhaps I did a little too much work on my T-4XC. 
 
I just finished restoring my transmitter, and during my work I found a few problems with wafer misalignment and too much "play" on certain wafers. Can you comment on the best ways to correct these problems?
 
I would also like to know what typical settings for plate and load controls should be when loading into a dummy load. I have never owned a working C-line before, so I am not sure what "normal" is. Suffice it to say, I believe my plate control is turned relatively high. I just about "run out of room" on 10 meters.
 
Also, what kind of output power should I be getting. When I follow the tuning procedure given in an errata sheet indicating that I should limit my plate current to 340 mA in order to meet FCC regs, I only get about 85 watts out on 80 and 40 meters. When loading to full power, what is the maximum plate current I can load to without melting my new finals?
 
For those of us that were discussing how to obtain knobs for the Drake: I called Caltronix today and they confirmed that the 50-133 knob is only available from the manufacturer if they buy 500 pieces. They are looking for another vendor who will sell in more reasonable quantities. In the meantime, they have available the 50-123 knob, which is 1.04" in diameter vs. the 50-133, which is 0.93" diameter. Has anybody had any luck with other vendors? I still need to replace one knob.
 
I hope to chat with you guys this Sunday during the CE Contest.
 
73,
 
Eric KA8FAN
Garey Barrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Garey Barrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>made an utterence to the drakelist gang--Most switching problems in Drake gear are a result of wafer misalignment or wafer center hole wear. Making sure the switch assembly hardware is tight and properly aligned and keeping shaft bearing surfaces lubricated will correct the first and help mitigate the last.Silver "cleaners" clean by removing, either by chemical or mechanical means, silver (di?)sulfide. This is the black stuff seen on silver items. Unfortunately, when you remove silver disulfide, you are by definition removing "some" silver. The thing is, silver disulfide is very soft, and easily displaced by the spring action of the switch contacts. You can see this by looking closely at the blackened area of a switch.!
 You will
 see a bright silver line where the contact has been wiping. By the way, the black deposit is essentially as conductive as silver.The bad news is that any chemical or mechanical abrasive that is left behind on the switch after "cleaning" continues to work.DeoxiT is excellent at removing minute amounts of corrosion at the contact points without attacking the _thin_ silver layer, restoring electrical conductivity. Liquid DeoxiT (Was D100L under old nomenclature) is best, since you want it only on the contact area, NOT all over everything in the general area to attract and hold dust.The only reason I see for "cleaning" switch silver is for appearance, which is perhaps important if you are competing in a concours show! The inherent hazards, not to mention the danger of "springing" or otherwise damaging small contact elements by poking around them with tools, far outweigh any positive effects.73, Garey -
 K4OAHAtlantaDrake C-Line Service ManualEric Webner wrote:> Hi Joe,> > Have you made any progress on your radio? I didn't see any responses > on drakelist.> > It seems the crystals are ok, so it must be a wire or more probably, a > switch contact. The wafer switches on these radios seem to corrode a > bit, with the metal parts turning black. You might be able to clean > the rotary switch contacts sufficiently with De-Oxit, but I used a > more thorough method on all the switches in my T-4XC. Check out > http://www.wb4hfn.com/DrakeArticles/CleaningSwitches/CleaningSwitches.htm for > details.> > BTW, this web site is very well done and you will want to explore the > other articles on it. Good luck.> > 73,> > Eric KA8FAN>> */Joe Roth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/*
 wrote:>>> "Joe Roth" made an utterence to the drakelist gang> --> I've added a lot of xtals to my R4C. I began to use position 11> which is now> in the 3 (bottom most) row. The entire row for positions 11-15> will not> work. The receiver acts as if the xtal sockets are empty. The xtal> works> fine in other positions. I've swapped all combinations around and> I know> there is a problem with the row. I looked at the obvious solder> joints on> the switch and traced the connections of 3 wires going to the> underside of> the chassis. Everything appears to be okay.> I now need to get in to it deeper and trace some lines with the> VOM. Does> anyone have suggestions to narrow things down?> TNX> Joe/N4ARI> www.n4ari.net>>> --On Behalf of Garey Barrell <[E

Re: [drakelist] R4C xtal bank bad

[Garey Barrell]

Garey Barrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterence to the drakelist gang
--
Most switching problems in Drake gear are a result of wafer misalignment 
or wafer center hole wear.  Making sure the switch assembly hardware is 
tight and properly aligned and keeping shaft bearing surfaces lubricated 
will correct the first and help mitigate the last.

Silver "cleaners" clean by removing, either by chemical or mechanical 
means, silver (di?)sulfide.   This is the black stuff seen on silver 
items.  Unfortunately, when you remove silver disulfide, you are by 
definition removing "some" silver.  The thing is, silver disulfide is 
very soft, and easily displaced by the spring action of the switch 
contacts.  You can see this by looking closely at the blackened area of 
a switch.  You will see a bright silver line where the contact has been 
wiping.  By the way, the black deposit is essentially as conductive as 
silver.

The bad news is that any chemical or mechanical abrasive that is left 
behind on the switch after "cleaning" continues to work.

DeoxiT is excellent at removing minute amounts of corrosion at the 
contact points without attacking the  _thin_  silver layer, restoring 
electrical conductivity.   Liquid DeoxiT (Was D100L under old 
nomenclature) is best, since you want it only on the contact area, NOT 
all over everything in the general area to attract and hold dust.

The only reason I see for "cleaning" switch silver is for appearance, 
which is perhaps important if you are competing in a concours show!   
The inherent hazards, not to mention the danger of "springing" or 
otherwise damaging small contact elements by poking around them with 
tools, far outweigh any positive effects.

73, Garey - K4OAH
Atlanta
Drake C-Line Service Manual


Eric Webner wrote:
Hi Joe,
 
Have you made any progress on your radio? I didn't see any responses 
on drakelist.
 
It seems the crystals are ok, so it must be a wire or more probably, a 
switch contact. The wafer switches on these radios seem to corrode a 
bit, with the metal parts turning black. You might be able to clean 
the rotary switch contacts sufficiently with De-Oxit, but I used a 
more thorough method on all the switches in my T-4XC. Check out 
http://www.wb4hfn.com/DrakeArticles/CleaningSwitches/CleaningSwitches.htm for 
details.
 
BTW, this web site is very well done and you will want to explore the 
other articles on it. Good luck.
 
73,
 
Eric KA8FAN

*/Joe Roth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/* wrote:
"Joe Roth" made an utterence to the drakelist gang
--
I've added a lot of xtals to my R4C. I began to use position 11
which is now
in the 3 (bottom most) row. The entire row for positions 11-15
will not
work. The receiver acts as if the xtal sockets are empty. The xtal
works
fine in other positions. I've swapped all combinations around and
I know
there is a problem with the row. I looked at the obvious solder
joints on
the switch and traced the connections of 3 wires going to the
underside of
the chassis. Everything appears to be okay.
I now need to get in to it deeper and trace some lines with the
VOM. Does
anyone have suggestions to narrow things down?
TNX
Joe/N4ARI
www.n4ari.net

--
On Behalf of Garey Barrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Submissions:drakelist@www.zerobeat.net
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
--

Re: [drakelist] R4C xtal bank bad

[Eric Webner]

Hi Joe,
 
Have you made any progress on your radio? I didn't see any responses on drakelist.
 
It seems the crystals are ok, so it must be a wire or more probably, a switch contact. The wafer switches on these radios seem to corrode a bit, with the metal parts turning black. You might be able to clean the rotary switch contacts sufficiently with De-Oxit, but I used a more thorough method on all the switches in my T-4XC. Check out http://www.wb4hfn.com/DrakeArticles/CleaningSwitches/CleaningSwitches.htm for details. 
 
BTW, this web site is very well done and you will want to explore the other articles on it. Good luck.
 
73,
 
Eric KA8FAN
Joe Roth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Joe Roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>made an utterence to the drakelist gang--I've added a lot of xtals to my R4C. I began to use position 11 which is now in the 3 (bottom most) row. The entire row for positions 11-15 will not work. The receiver acts as if the xtal sockets are empty. The xtal works fine in other positions. I've swapped all combinations around and I know there is a problem with the row. I looked at the obvious solder joints on the switch and traced the connections of 3 wires going to the underside of the chassis. Everything appears to be okay.I now need to get in to it deeper and trace some lines with the VOM. Does anyone have suggestions to narrow things
 down?TNXJoe/N4ARIwww.n4ari.net--On Behalf of "Joe Roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Submissions: drakelist@www.zerobeat.netUnsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in bodyHopelessly Lost: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of messageZerobeat Web Page: http://www.zerobeat.netBrought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net http://www.tlchost.net/--
		Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

[drakelist] R4C xtal bank bad

[Joe Roth]

"Joe Roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterence to the drakelist gang
--
I've added a lot of xtals to my R4C. I began to use position 11 which is now 
in the 3 (bottom most) row. The entire row for positions 11-15 will not 
work. The receiver acts as if the xtal sockets are empty. The xtal works 
fine in other positions. I've swapped all combinations around and I know 
there is a problem with the row. I looked at the obvious solder joints on 
the switch and traced the connections of 3 wires going to the underside of 
the chassis. Everything appears to be okay.
I now need to get in to it deeper and trace some lines with the VOM. Does 
anyone have suggestions to narrow things down?
TNX
Joe/N4ARI
www.n4ari.net

--
On Behalf of "Joe Roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Submissions:drakelist@www.zerobeat.net
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
--

[drakelist] R4C links

[Rein A. Smit]

"Rein A. Smit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterence to the drakelist gang
--
Hello All,
Here is what I have been able to find on mostly the R4C receiver
   http://www.nitehawk.com/rasmit/r4c.html
73 Rein W6/PA0ZN
--
On Behalf of "Rein A. Smit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Submissions:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
--

[drakelist] R4C mods.

[Rein A. Smit]

"Rein A. Smit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterence to the drakelist gang
--
Hi All,
During some time now, I have been trying to locate on the internet 
information on mods for the R4C, in particular for the product detector,
the mixers, as well as the RF/IF stages.

I have found some 30 references from power supplies, audio amplifiers
and of course, the Sherwood publications.
I also have all the issues of ham radio here as well as most of QEX 
going back to the start.

I believe that over the years, there must have been quite some traffic
about these subjects.?
I have a R4C ( S/N 26000 )that I like to bring up to a state of the art 
receiver mainly because of the low phase noise characteristics of the 
PTO, still hard to beat for the amount of money I paid for the R4C.

The level of phase noise is important for IF applications.
If you can help me on the way, please contact me direct.
Regards
Rein, W6/PA0ZN
--
On Behalf of "Rein A. Smit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Submissions:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
--

[drakelist] R4C dial plates anyone?

[john]

Looking for a nice set of dial plates... I've got a R4C that is otherwise
very nice, except for scratched up dial plates.

Thanks!
John K5MO

---

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.727 / Virus Database: 482 - Release Date: 7/26/04

Re: [drakelist] R4C SSB filter install?

[Garey Barrell]

Garey Barrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterence to the drakelist gang
--
Lee -
You are correct.!  And I just spent three weeks making a full parts 
list and board locator layout of the C Line  Guess I was still 
cross-eyed!

Thanks for pointing this out.
73, Garey - K4OAH
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Garey and all.
Of course the AM filter does not go into the slot in the BOTTEM,,, it 
goes in the slot on TOP (under the big metal cover of course) with no 
AM ilter it has a resistor in place there.

2.4 ( I think thats the BW) goes below the chassis.
And of course the back of the RCVR is where the othr optional filters 
go. (1.5, .5, .25)

73,
Lee
--
On Behalf of Garey Barrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Submissions:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
--

Re: [drakelist] R4C SSB filter install?

[Garey Barrell]

Garey Barrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterence to the drakelist gang
--
George -
The filter socket below the chassis is for the AM filter, and is in 
circuit ONLY in AM mode.

The 1.5kHz filter is usually put into the topmost socket on the rear of 
the receiver, 500 Hz in the center, and 250 Hz on the lowest socket.  
Obviously they can be put anywhere, but this is the order that agrees 
with the front panel selectivity switch.

73, Garey - K4OAH
Atlanta
George Cortez wrote:
George Cortez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterence to the drakelist 
gang
--
Hi All
What is the preferred method for installing the 1.5kc filter in the R4C

I assume its installed in the bottom of the rig?
Thanks
George Ne2I
--
On Behalf of Garey Barrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Submissions:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
--

[drakelist] R4C SSB filter install?

[George Cortez]

George Cortez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterence to the drakelist gang
--
Hi All
What is the preferred method for installing the 1.5kc filter in the R4C
I assume its installed in the bottom of the rig?
Thanks
George Ne2I

--
On Behalf of George Cortez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Submissions:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
--

Re: [drakelist] R4C NB pricing & Parting Out Radios

[W4AWM]

In a message dated 8/21/2004 8:56:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [drakelist] R4C NB pricing & Parting Out Radios

[Gary Poland]

"Gary Poland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterence to the drakelist gang
--
Ditto Ron.


Gary
--
On Behalf of "Gary Poland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Submissions:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
--

Re: [drakelist] R4C NB pricing & Parting Out Radios

[W2AGN]

W2AGN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterence to the drakelist gang
--
On Saturday 21 August 2004 08:20, Ron Baker wrote:
> "Ron Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterence to the drakelist gang
> --
>  My two cents worthI now step up on my soap-box.
>

>
> Just remember parting out an old radio is death to another piece of our
> heritage, just make sure its necessary.
>
> I now step off my soap-box.
>
> 73,  de   Ron / WB4HFN

Bravo! Well said. Unfortunately al lot of these radios are parted out because 
the greedy seller thinks he can get more for it that way. 
-- 
 +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+  John L. Sielke
 |W| |2| |A| |G| |N|  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+  http://w2agn.net

--
On Behalf of W2AGN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Submissions:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
--

Re: [drakelist] R4C NB pricing & Parting Out Radios

[Ron Baker]

"Ron Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterence to the drakelist gang
--
 My two cents worthI now step up on my soap-box.

I consider the Drake equipment as some of our history, ham radio heritage.
To tear apart a perfectly good working radio for parts really hurts.   Its
like destroying a piece of our history.  However if the radio is otherwise
feasibly unrepairable, parting one out to help resurrect a few other radios
is a good deed done.   However, the term "feasibly unrepairable" is just
that and not a viable repair that someone just doesn't have the knowledge to
make.I have been restoring Drake and Collins equipment for many years
with the idea of keeping alive yet another piece of history for a while
longer.

I also hate to see anyone take apart a radio selling it a piece at a time,
beyond how the manufacturer sold it originally.  For instance the R4B came
with all the accessories built into the radio, whereas the R4C every option,
except the crystal calibrator, was sold separately.   So regarding the R4C,
even though I hate to see those pieces sold separately once is becomes
complete, I also understand the other point of view in those accessories
were originally sold separately.   I know because my first R4C purchase back
in the 1970's I bought everything and put it together staying up very late
that night, going to school the next day with hardly no sleep, but my new
R4C worked great.

Here is a good news story and one of my treasured radios.I saw on eBay a
TR7 advertised as an unrepairable parts radio with the guts spread across a
few auctions.  The radio appeared to be in good physical condition and I saw
no real reason to make parts of it.   I bought up all the auctions, put the
radio back together, made a few repairs, the radio now works fine, looks
great and its used often.   Its actually one of my favorites, not because
its Drake, but because it was brought back to life and I proved to myself,
the previous owner, and the world this TR7 wasn't ready to be just parts.

Just remember parting out an old radio is death to another piece of our
heritage, just make sure its necessary.

I now step off my soap-box.

73,  de   Ron / WB4HFN


--
On Behalf of "Ron Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Submissions:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
--

Re: [drakelist] R4C NB pricing

[Thom R. Lacosta]

"Thom R. Lacosta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterence to the drakelist gang
--
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004, Gary Poland wrote:
"Gary Poland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterence to the drakelist gang
--
Thom,
 I dont think these guys are concerned about others fixing their
radios...besides I have repaired a ton of Drakes and have yet to destroy one
to repair another. Parting out a basket case is one thing, parting out a
perfectly good radio for more profit is something else...enough said I wont
beat this subject to death...just really upsets me.
It's a different world these dayspeople have no problem whatsoever sending 
spam, destroying radios for profit and using mailing lists like this one to
make their money.

Without naming names, over the years I've watched folks advertise on mailing 
listsnever offering to defray the cost of maintaining the list, never even
saying thanks for the free advertising.

While it hasn't happened here, I once ran a list that attracted a lot of the get 
rich quick schemers.  Because it was SO obvious they were using the list to make
money, I asked them to pay for the advertising.  ManI was accussed of 
everything short of having sex with their animalsand they actually attempted 
to justify their actions because they were "helping" others.

I think the crass commercialism we see in lists and the explosion of E-PAY is an 
indication that we've lost the ability to simply help others...either no charge, 
or for very minimal sums.

Thom
http://www.baltimorehon.com/Home of the Baltimore Lexicon
http://www.tlchost.net/  Web Hosting as low as 3.49/month
--
On Behalf of "Thom R. Lacosta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Submissions:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
--

Re: [drakelist] R4C NB pricing

[Don and Diana Cunningham]

"Don and Diana Cunningham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterence to the drakelist gang
--
My last post too, Jim, but you missed part of the point all of us were
making.  When the ad says "I know it works because it came from a working
radio", it wasn't dropped on a concrete floor, it was destroyed.  Off my
soapbox and back in the corner, hi.
73 all,
Don, WB5HAK
- Original Message -
From: "Jim W7RY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Don and Diana Cunningham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Gary Poland"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 12:00 AM
Subject: Re: [drakelist] R4C NB pricing


> But if you REALLY need a part for an old Drake that had been for
> example. Damaged in shipping or dropped on the concrete floor by
> its owner
>
> You would be glad to have a part from a "parted out" radio. Or would you
> just be hypocritical and part the radio out yourself?
>
> Ever hear of an automobile wrecking yard? There were/are some classic cars
> worth lots of money that ended up being used for parts Still Happens
> every day.
>
> 8 years ago, I parted out a Johnson desk kilowatt that was headed to the
> junk...  Gave most of it away It would be nice to have it back and
> complete today...If wishes were horses, beggars would ride free.
>
> Ebay is a supply and demand thing... If the demand was not there...
niether
> would the supply.
>
> Climbing off my soap box now...
>
> 73
> Jim W7RY
>
>
> At 08:04 PM 8/20/2004, Don and Diana Cunningham wrote:
>
> >"Don and Diana Cunningham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterence to the
> >drakelist gang
> >--
> >I agree, Gary.  I have made one of these people a fair offer for
something
> >offered at too high a price on Ebay to fix a rig, and got the old "pay
the
> >price or do without" answer.  Found a parts rig and did the job, no
thanks
> >to the "salvager".  Actually bought the parts rig from a real ham for
less
> >than the board was offered for!
> >73,
> >Don, WB5HAK
> >- Original Message -
> >From: "Gary Poland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 9:43 PM
> >Subject: Re: [drakelist] R4C NB pricing
> >
> >
> > >
> > > "Gary Poland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterence to the
drakelist
> >gang
> > > --
> > > Thom,
> > >   I dont think these guys are concerned about others fixing their
> > > radios...besides I have repaired a ton of Drakes and have yet to
destroy
> >one
> > > to repair another. Parting out a basket case is one thing, parting out
a
> > > perfectly good radio for more profit is something else...enough said I
> >wont
> > > beat this subject to death...just really upsets me.
> > >
> > > 73, Gary
> > >
> > > --
> > > On Behalf of "Gary Poland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Submissions:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist
in
> >body
> > > Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of
message
> > > Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
> > > Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
> > > --
> > >
> >
> >--
> >On Behalf of "Don and Diana Cunningham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Submissions:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in
body
> >Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
> >Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
> >Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
> >--
>

--
On Behalf of "Don and Diana Cunningham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Submissions:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
--

Re: [drakelist] R4C NB pricing

[Jim W7RY]

Jim W7RY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterence to the drakelist gang
--
But if you REALLY need a part for an old Drake that had been for 
example. Damaged in shipping or dropped on the concrete floor by 
its owner

You would be glad to have a part from a "parted out" radio. Or would you 
just be hypocritical and part the radio out yourself?

Ever hear of an automobile wrecking yard? There were/are some classic cars 
worth lots of money that ended up being used for parts Still Happens 
every day.

8 years ago, I parted out a Johnson desk kilowatt that was headed to the 
junk...  Gave most of it away It would be nice to have it back and 
complete today...If wishes were horses, beggars would ride free.

Ebay is a supply and demand thing... If the demand was not there... niether 
would the supply.

Climbing off my soap box now...
73
Jim W7RY
At 08:04 PM 8/20/2004, Don and Diana Cunningham wrote:
"Don and Diana Cunningham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterence to the 
drakelist gang
--
I agree, Gary.  I have made one of these people a fair offer for something
offered at too high a price on Ebay to fix a rig, and got the old "pay the
price or do without" answer.  Found a parts rig and did the job, no thanks
to the "salvager".  Actually bought the parts rig from a real ham for less
than the board was offered for!
73,
Don, WB5HAK
- Original Message -
From: "Gary Poland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: [drakelist] R4C NB pricing

>
> "Gary Poland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterence to the drakelist
gang
> --
> Thom,
>   I dont think these guys are concerned about others fixing their
> radios...besides I have repaired a ton of Drakes and have yet to destroy
one
> to repair another. Parting out a basket case is one thing, parting out a
> perfectly good radio for more profit is something else...enough said I
wont
> beat this subject to death...just really upsets me.
>
> 73, Gary
>
> --
> On Behalf of "Gary Poland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Submissions:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in
body
> Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
> Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
> Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
> --
>
--
On Behalf of "Don and Diana Cunningham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Submissions:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
--
--
On Behalf of Jim W7RY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Submissions:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
--

Re: [drakelist] R4C NB pricing

[Grant Youngman]

"Grant Youngman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterence to the drakelist gang
--
On 20 Aug 2004 at 22:32, Dan Cotsirilos wrote:

> ..   The last R-4C I parted out was a radio that
> I paid full price for and it was a basket case! the tuning was all screwed
> up, it had a hum and a couple other things wrong. about 10 people or so on
> here all benefited by repairing there broken radios 

Since it may be my initial post that started some of this discussion, 
let me be clear where I was going.  I draw a distinction between an 
economically unrestorarable radio  that is parted out and a radio that 
is simply stripped of its options so that every possible separate 
piece can be sold independently.  I  still have several "parts" radios 
around that I offer pieces to when I see someone who needs 
something, and have used pieces from to complete the restoration 
of other radios.

What "chalks my jaw", as they say,  is the kit radio .. an R-4C with 
absolutely no options for example, when the same seller also has 
for sale an NB-4, 3 Drake filters, some extra band crystals, etc.  
Most likely the R-4C started out as a nice radio you might want to 
own.   Or guys who sell an HRO-60 with NO coil sets, yet they have 
4 coil sets, a storage box, the original shipping carton, the original 
manual,  and a calibrator individually for sale at the same time.

Last study I saw, a Mercedes was typically worth about $1M as 
parts.

But I have no quarrel with making use of the bones of a derelict to 
resurrect a treasure :-)

Grant/NQ5T





--
On Behalf of "Grant Youngman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Submissions:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
--

Re: [drakelist] R4C NB pricing

[Dan Cotsirilos]

"Dan Cotsirilos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterence to the drakelist gang
--
Gary I can tell you first hand that if I part out a radio I do it more for
the fun of helping Drake lovers. The last R-4C I parted out was a radio that
I paid full price for and it was a basket case! the tuning was all screwed
up, it had a hum and a couple other things wrong. about 10 people or so on
here all benefited by repairing there broken radios and I lost about $200.
at least 10 people now have working radios or cosmetically improved, how
else could they of ever had this opportunity if I didn't done this? One was
sacrificed to help 10!  Dan


- Original Message - 
From: "Gary Poland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: [drakelist] R4C NB pricing


>
> "Gary Poland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterence to the drakelist
gang
> --
> Thom,
>   I dont think these guys are concerned about others fixing their
> radios...besides I have repaired a ton of Drakes and have yet to destroy
one
> to repair another. Parting out a basket case is one thing, parting out a
> perfectly good radio for more profit is something else...enough said I
wont
> beat this subject to death...just really upsets me.
>
> 73, Gary
>
> --
> On Behalf of "Gary Poland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Submissions:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in
body
> Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
> Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
> Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
> --

--
On Behalf of "Dan Cotsirilos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Submissions:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
--

Re: [drakelist] R4C NB pricing

[Don and Diana Cunningham]

"Don and Diana Cunningham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterence to the drakelist gang
--
I agree, Gary.  I have made one of these people a fair offer for something
offered at too high a price on Ebay to fix a rig, and got the old "pay the
price or do without" answer.  Found a parts rig and did the job, no thanks
to the "salvager".  Actually bought the parts rig from a real ham for less
than the board was offered for!
73,
Don, WB5HAK
- Original Message -
From: "Gary Poland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: [drakelist] R4C NB pricing


>
> "Gary Poland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterence to the drakelist
gang
> --
> Thom,
>   I dont think these guys are concerned about others fixing their
> radios...besides I have repaired a ton of Drakes and have yet to destroy
one
> to repair another. Parting out a basket case is one thing, parting out a
> perfectly good radio for more profit is something else...enough said I
wont
> beat this subject to death...just really upsets me.
>
> 73, Gary
>
> --
> On Behalf of "Gary Poland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Submissions:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in
body
> Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
> Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
> Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
> --
>

--
On Behalf of "Don and Diana Cunningham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Submissions:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
--

Re: [drakelist] R4C NB pricing

[Gary Poland]

"Gary Poland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterence to the drakelist gang
--
Thom,
  I dont think these guys are concerned about others fixing their
radios...besides I have repaired a ton of Drakes and have yet to destroy one
to repair another. Parting out a basket case is one thing, parting out a
perfectly good radio for more profit is something else...enough said I wont
beat this subject to death...just really upsets me.

73, Gary

--
On Behalf of "Gary Poland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Submissions:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
--

Re: [drakelist] R4C NB pricing

[Gary Poland]

"Gary Poland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterence to the drakelist gang
--
I suppose supply and demand may have something to do with it, but in the
case of eBay I can't help but think greed has more to do with determining
the prices. eBay is killing the hamfests and the entire spirit of buying and
swapping.

Gary

--
On Behalf of "Gary Poland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Submissions:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
--

Re: [drakelist] R4C NB pricing

[Thom R. Lacosta]

"Thom R. Lacosta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterence to the drakelist gang
--
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004, Grant Youngman wrote:
Some poor schmuck actually trying to buy a whole radio pays the
price.  Next prospective seller sees the prices on options and his
eyes glaze over as he begins to salivate at the thought of the
bankroll;  and he does the same.  Slowly the prices creep.  I'ts easy
to see ... the same guy will have the radio (no options) and all of the
options for sale separately.  e-place or private sale .. same same.
And so the guy who's klug and has a radio that he "could" repair, if he could 
get the parts, will simply start to part it out and store the stuff...waiting 
for the right schmuck to come along.

Thom
http://www.baltimorehon.com/Home of the Baltimore Lexicon
http://www.tlchost.net/  Web Hosting as low as 3.49/month
--
On Behalf of "Thom R. Lacosta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Submissions:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
--

Re: [drakelist] R4C NB pricing

[Grant Youngman]

"Grant Youngman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterence to the drakelist gang
--

>  ... ,snip>  Today a working unit sells
> on eBay from $125 to around $200.I don't know how many Drake
> manufactured but you don't see them for sale very often.   I think the price
> is driven by "supply and demand".

I'll rant on this one.  I think a big part of the problem is parts ... or 
parted out radios.  In this sense.

Some sellers pull all of the options out of a perfectly good 
"complete" radio and sell them separately.  Noise blankers, crystals, 
crystal filters, calibrators, option boards, and most "scum"marily .. 
things like band modules for an HRO.  You want to buy an HRO-5?  
You might have to separately purchase the radio frame, all of the 
band plugins (one at a time, plus one more sale for the storage 
box), the power supply, etc.  In a competitive bid situation, by the 
time you're done that radio has cost a fortune .. and you probably 
still have an incomplete radio.   I'm surprised in some cases that the 
knobs and tubes aren't also sold one at a time ...:-(

Some poor schmuck actually trying to buy a whole radio pays the 
price.  Next prospective seller sees the prices on options and his 
eyes glaze over as he begins to salivate at the thought of the 
bankroll;  and he does the same.  Slowly the prices creep.  I'ts easy 
to see ... the same guy will have the radio (no options) and all of the 
options for sale separately.  e-place or private sale .. same same.

Happens all the time.

Of course, the other expanation is that there just aren't enough of 
them to go around :-)

Grant/NQ5T
--
On Behalf of "Grant Youngman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Submissions:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
--

Re: [drakelist] R4C NB pricing

[Ron Baker]

"Ron Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterence to the drakelist gang
--

Joe,   the original cost of the 4-NB noise blanker was not that expensive.
According to price lists published on my Drake website in 1975 the 4-NB was
$65.00.  By 1978 the cost rose to $74.00.   Today a working unit sells
on eBay from $125 to around $200.I don't know how many Drake
manufactured but you don't see them for sale very often.   I think the price
is driven by "supply and demand".

Ron / WB4HFN



- Original Message - 
From: "J Roth, N4ARI" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Drake List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 5:33 PM
Subject: [drakelist] R4C NB pricing


>
> "J Roth, N4ARI" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterence to the drakelist gang
> --
> Why does the NB board for the R4 cost so much now?
> Is it simply that there are so few around or was it expensive originally?
> Has anyone tried their hand a third party duplicate?
> Joe
>
> --
> On Behalf of "J Roth, N4ARI" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Submissions:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in
body
> Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
> Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
> Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
> --
>


--
On Behalf of "Ron Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Submissions:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
--

[drakelist] R4C NB pricing

[J Roth, N4ARI]

"J Roth, N4ARI" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterence to the drakelist gang
--
Why does the NB board for the R4 cost so much now?
Is it simply that there are so few around or was it expensive originally? 
Has anyone tried their hand a third party duplicate?
Joe

--
On Behalf of "J Roth, N4ARI" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Submissions:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
--

[drakelist] r4c pto display

[ad04106]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] made an utterence to the drakelist gang
--
hi, I need a fine division dial/display disk for an r4c that i just acquired. the one 
that was in it was warped, is oval rather than round. does the r4c use the clear blue 
plastic shield behind the dials? if so i would need that as well.

thanks, ross anderson w1tnt  

__
Switch to Netscape Internet Service.
As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register

Netscape. Just the Net You Need.

New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer
Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups.
Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp
--
On Behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Submissions:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page:  http://www.zerobeat.net
Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
--

[drakelist] R4C Dial Skirt

[David M Eakins]

Hi all,

I am looking for an R4C main dial skirt. Anyone out there have one they
would sell? I bought an R4C with the B line skirt. If I can replace this one
with the proper one, My Good condition 4B type skirt will be for sale, or
possible trade?

73,

Mike - K7OV


<>

Re: [drakelist] R4C/TX4C Sidetone Problem

[Garey Barrell]

Paul -

Quite likely the electrolytic capacitor at C107.  Easy to check by 
bridging with a good 60-100 uF cap.  When the ESR of the cap goes up, 
the tone leaks through the B+ line to the grid of V7, which is the 
sidetone amp, bypassing the diode switch.

Also possibly a leaky diode at CR15, but less likely than C107.

The mic amp V9A is connected as an audio oscillator through the phase 
shift network, and is keyed whenever the PTT (or semi-breakin) is 
keyed.  The audio tone is shorted to ground by the keying bias applied 
to CR15 when the key is up.

My bet it the cap.

73, Garey - K4OAH
Atlanta
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

While sending cw a steady, but weaker tone, is heard in the background.  
It continues until the relay switches back to receive.  Any suggestions 
as to what part or parts have deteriorated?  Thanks
Paul
K7CKZ

--
Submissions:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED] - subscribe drakelist in body
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
--

RE: [drakelist] R4C/TX4C Sidetone Problem

[Ken Lotts]

FWIW, I had this "side tone" issue on all three of my C lines (over the
years).. I always just dissmissed it as a harmless anomaly..  Thanks for the
advise!  Maybe there is hope.

Ken Lotts
aa7jc Sierra Vista, AZ

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Robert Schenck
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 7:28 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [drakelist] R4C/TX4C Sidetone Problem



Hi Paul,

You are probably hearing the T4X-C carrier oscillator getting into the
R4-C. You can see if the signal is reduced or goes away if you unplug the
carrier cable between the T4X-C and the R4-C. The key to this is that you
loose the tone when the T/R relay goes to receive. IN CW mode, the mic
preamp is used as a phase shift audio oscillator at about 700-800 Hz that
is running all the time. This audio tone is passed, via the key action
removing the forward bias on CR15, and this allows the audio tone to key
the vox circuit, and also output over the VOX Anti-trip/ sidetone cable to
get to the output transformer of the R4-C.
The VOX circuit then powers the T/R relay. One of the functions of the T/R
relay is to enable the carrier oscillator, Q2. IN SSB mode, the 5645 KHz
output of the carrier oscillator is bufferd by Q2 and sent to the R4-C
carrier input jack to lock the R4-C's carrier oscillator to the T4X-C. But,
when in either CW, or AM, the carrier is pulled off frequency by about 750
Hz so that it can pass through the sideband filter. In both CW and AM, the
mode switch disconnects the signal output to the carrier jack, and, a
negative DC bias from the R4-C, by means of the VOX Anti-trip / sidetone
cable, diables the carrier oscillator output buffer Q2.

The symptoms you describe suggest that the T4X-C carrier oscillator is
getting into the R4-C where it is heard as the fixed weak tone. It will not
change pitch by tuning. The cut off bias is provided therough a high
resistance in the R4-C. You should measure the voltage with a high
impedance meter on the VOX Anti-trip / sidetone cable with it disconnected
form the T4X-C. it should be around -55 volts or so.

IF the voltage coming out of the R4-C is ok, then there may be excessive
leakage in either C104 or C105...they couple AC in the VOX Anti-trip /
sidetone circuitry in the T4X-C.  IF they leak and reduce the negative DC
bias, the carrier oscillator buffer may porivde enough signal to leak out
of the T4X-C and into the R4-C. It is unlikely that it is sidetone itself
leaking, since the tone goes away during receive. Of course, if there is
not sufficient bias from the R4-C, the problem is in the R4-C. I beleive
there is a .05 uF RF bypass cap or a coupling cap in the VOX Anti-trip /
sidetone circuitry in the R4-C and it could also be a source of leakage.

Well, at least this may give you a place to start looking.

73's

Rob
K2CU

\
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>While sending cw a steady, but weaker tone, is heard in the background.  It
>continues until the relay switches back to receive.  Any suggestions as to
what
>part or parts have deteriorated?  Thanks
>Paul
>K7CKZ
>
>

__
McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network.
Comprehensive protection for your entire computer. Get your free trial
today!
http://channels.netscape.com/ns/computing/mcafee/index.jsp?promo=393397

Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge.  Download Now!
http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455
--
Submissions:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED] - subscribe drakelist in body
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in
body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
--

--
Submissions:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED] - subscribe drakelist in body
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
--

RE: [drakelist] R4C/TX4C Sidetone Problem

[Robert Schenck]

Hi Paul,

You are probably hearing the T4X-C carrier oscillator getting into the
R4-C. You can see if the signal is reduced or goes away if you unplug the carrier 
cable between the T4X-C and the R4-C. The key to this is that you
loose the tone when the T/R relay goes to receive. IN CW mode, the mic 
preamp is used as a phase shift audio oscillator at about 700-800 Hz that 
is running all the time. This audio tone is passed, via the key action 
removing the forward bias on CR15, and this allows the audio tone to key 
the vox circuit, and also output over the VOX Anti-trip/ sidetone cable to 
get to the output transformer of the R4-C. 
The VOX circuit then powers the T/R relay. One of the functions of the T/R 
relay is to enable the carrier oscillator, Q2. IN SSB mode, the 5645 KHz 
output of the carrier oscillator is bufferd by Q2 and sent to the R4-C 
carrier input jack to lock the R4-C's carrier oscillator to the T4X-C. But, 
when in either CW, or AM, the carrier is pulled off frequency by about 750 
Hz so that it can pass through the sideband filter. In both CW and AM, the 
mode switch disconnects the signal output to the carrier jack, and, a 
negative DC bias from the R4-C, by means of the VOX Anti-trip / sidetone 
cable, diables the carrier oscillator output buffer Q2. 

The symptoms you describe suggest that the T4X-C carrier oscillator is getting into 
the R4-C where it is heard as the fixed weak tone. It will not 
change pitch by tuning. The cut off bias is provided therough a high 
resistance in the R4-C. You should measure the voltage with a high 
impedance meter on the VOX Anti-trip / sidetone cable with it disconnected form the 
T4X-C. it should be around -55 volts or so. 

IF the voltage coming out of the R4-C is ok, then there may be excessive 
leakage in either C104 or C105...they couple AC in the VOX Anti-trip / 
sidetone circuitry in the T4X-C.  IF they leak and reduce the negative DC 
bias, the carrier oscillator buffer may porivde enough signal to leak out 
of the T4X-C and into the R4-C. It is unlikely that it is sidetone itself 
leaking, since the tone goes away during receive. Of course, if there is 
not sufficient bias from the R4-C, the problem is in the R4-C. I beleive 
there is a .05 uF RF bypass cap or a coupling cap in the VOX Anti-trip / 
sidetone circuitry in the R4-C and it could also be a source of leakage. 

Well, at least this may give you a place to start looking. 

73's

Rob
K2CU

\
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>While sending cw a steady, but weaker tone, is heard in the background.  It
>continues until the relay switches back to receive.  Any suggestions as to what
>part or parts have deteriorated?  Thanks
>Paul
>K7CKZ
>
>

__
McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network.
Comprehensive protection for your entire computer. Get your free trial today!
http://channels.netscape.com/ns/computing/mcafee/index.jsp?promo=393397

Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge.  Download Now!
http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455
--
Submissions:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED] - subscribe drakelist in body
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
--

[drakelist] R4C/TX4C Sidetone Problem

[Paulprato]

While sending cw a steady, but weaker tone, is heard in the background.  It continues until the relay switches back to receive.  Any suggestions as to what part or parts have deteriorated?  Thanks
Paul
K7CKZ

[drakelist] R4C alignment?

[David Austin]

Sorry if this message appears twice. Think I sent it to the wrong address 
for the list first time.
 
I have a Drake 
R4C. With no antenna connected, the peak of white noiseobtainable on any 
band using the preselector is not at all pronounced, andon 28MHz is barely 
(but just) audible with the audio gain nearly fullyadvanced. The RX has no 
mods (but have a full bag of Sherwood parts andfilters waiting to be 
fitted!).Is this a sign that the receiver needs alignment and/or new 
tubes, or is itjust the mark of an excellent low noise receiver design? How 
often would anR4C need alignment, assuming no major maintenance has been 
carried out, ifat all?David 
AustinG4GTP

[drakelist] R4C alignment?

[David Austin]

I have a Drake R4C. With no antenna connected, the peak of white noise
obtainable on any band using the preselector is not at all pronounced, and
on 28MHz is barely (but just) audible with the audio gain nearly fully
advanced. The RX has no mods (but have a full bag of Sherwood parts and
filters waiting to be fitted!).

Is this a sign that the receiver needs alignment and/or new tubes, or is it
just the mark of an excellent low noise receiver design? How often would an
R4C need alignment, assuming no major maintenance has been carried out, if
at all?

David Austin
G4GTP

--
Submissions:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED] - subscribe drakelist in body
Unsubscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net  http://www.tlchost.net/
--