My 410B has a built in 22 megohm isolation resistor built into the
DC probe. My GR VTVM does not but I put a one meg resistor in series
with it. It has a 10 meg input resistance so the extra megohm does not
affect the voltage.
I am attaching an S-20R handbook to this post. Its my scan and
fairly decent, at least readable. The same scan is on BAMA along with
some others. It does not have a voltage or resistance chart. I hope it
is of some help to you.
I bought a supposedly rebuilt S-20R several years ago at a swap
meet. Worked but I found the rebuilder had left out the noise limiter
and some other stuff I don't remember. In any case, I did a thorough
rebuild using polypropylene caps and replaced several resistors. The set
does not have the original electro-dynamic speaker but has a good
quality PM speaker. The PM speaker can be used by replacing the speaker
field coil with a 1500 ohm resistor as is done in the S-40A. It is a
surprisingly good receiver. I have another on the back burner to be
restored.
FWIW I also have a Tek DVM. Same input resistance for DC, I
sometimes use an isolation resistor at the measuring point but the 410B
is more convenient.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 3/4/2025 5:38 PM, don Root wrote: Richard ?do your DVM’s have an isolation probe for capacitance
decoupling back to the DOT?
Resistance of DVMs can be? very high, but ?test wires have capacitance
that will ?mess with tuned circuits as the LO.? Halli sometimes
indicated which pins can be measured with only a VTVM , but the S-20R on
Bama has no chart and the schematic I see is mostly not readable.
**_
--
don??? va3drl
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL
SKCC 19998
|
Richard ?do your DVM’s have an isolation probe for capacitance decoupling back to the DOT? ??? Resistance of DVMs can be? very high, but ?test wires have capacitance that will ?mess with tuned circuits as the LO.? Halli sometimes indicated which pins can be measured with only a VTVM , but the S-20R on Bama has no chart and the schematic I see is mostly not readable. ? -- don??? va3drl
|
Thank you, Don. No, the set was not operating when I acquired it last year. It is dead on all bands. Over the winter I through it and replaced all resistors and capacitors, upgraded the power cord to 3-conductor, and replaced the speaker with a PM type plus a choke. I have a spare, 4" electrodynamic type of speaker like the original but have not yet tried it. Yes, I tried cleaning the 6K8 socket pins with De-Oxit, and I tried a second tube. If that was the only problem, I don't think the voltages on the tube socket would still be "off."
?
Tom
On 03/04/2025 1:56 PM PST don Root <drootofallevil@...> wrote:
?
?
Hello Tom
Around the HF, especially the LO, I wonder if you can trust a DMM having only wires {no isolation probe } at some pins.
It never did work while you have had it? ?
Assume, you tried another tube ?
?and since you did not say..it ?must be dead on all bands?
What all has been changed {or not] in that area… ??
De-Oxit on socket ?
Do you have other test equipment?
--
don??? va3drl
|
Thank you, Jacques. The problem is on all bands. I have replaced all the resistors and capacitors in this set except for a large mica cap buried under the oscillator coil assembly. I was hoping not to have to lift that assembly.
?
Tom
On 03/04/2025 1:04 PM PST Jacques_VE2JFE via groups.io <jacques.f@...> wrote:
?
?
Hi Tom,
The triode section of the 6K8 is effectively not oscillating, and that explain all the voltage readings you got.
There should be an open coil somewhere, or an open capacitor in the oscillator path.
Are all the bands defective (aka not working) ?
If all the coils windings are OK when checked with an ohmmeter, either C33 or C37 (or both !) can be “open”.
?
73, Jacques, VE2JFE in Montreal
?
|
A DMM and a VTVM are essentially the same. I prefer the term
"electronic voltmeter". The voltages for the S-20R were probably taken
with a passive VOM. I don't remember if the meter characteristics are
shown with the voltage chart, they should be. The load resistance of the
meter affects the readings, for using a voltage chart the measurement
meter must be the same as whatever the factory used. Older VOM's are
typically 1000 ohms/volt and later ones (mostly post WW-2) are usually
20,OOO ohms/Volt both for DC. AC can be something else but critical AC
measurements are usually of grid voltage and require a VTVM or DMV.
The load resistance of a passive VOM is established by the voltage
divider string. The Ohms/V means that the load presented by the meter is
equal to the full scale voltage times the ohms per volt and will be the
same for that range. For higher voltage ranges the load resistance can
be very high but for low voltages it will be low enough to give trouble
when measuring grid bias (or AVC) voltages.
The load resistance of a VTVM or DVM is essentially constant
although it may be higher for higher ranges, depending on the meter.
Typical meters are about 10 megohm load independent of range or voltage.
Some meters have an isolating resistor in the probe to reduce capacitive
loading. For instance, Heathkit meters have a 1 megohm resistor in the
tip of the probe, that is why their specified load is 11 megohms while
the meter itself is a 10Meg unit.
I read the original complaint as the receiver is not oscillating on
all bands. That suggests the oscillator section of the tuning capacitor
has a short in it. Easy to find with an ohm meter. Can be other things
of course. If the cap is OK check the resistors and capacitors
associated with the oscillator. My S-20R had lots of bad resistors. I
changed every paper or electrolytic cap in it and found many resistors
far out of spec. It is a good receiver and should perform pretty well.
Deafer on the higher band as are most older multi band receivers but
changing the paper caps to plastic ones will help that. There is one low
inductance cap, forgotten which one but has ribbon type leads. Just
replace it with a regular plastic cap, it will work fine.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 3/4/2025 1:56 PM, don Root wrote: Hello Tom
Around the HF, especially the LO, I wonder if you can trust a DMM having
only wires {no isolation probe } at some pins.
It never did work while you have had it?
Assume, you tried another tube ?
?and since you did not say..it ?must be dead on all bands?
What all has been changed {or not] in that area… ??
De-Oxit on socket ?
Do you have other test equipment?
**
--
don??? va3drl
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL
SKCC 19998
|
Hello Tom Around the HF, especially the LO, I wonder if you can trust a DMM having only wires {no isolation probe } at some pins. It never did work while you have had it? ? Assume, you tried another tube ? ?and since you did not say..it ?must be dead on all bands? What all has been changed {or not] in that area… ?? De-Oxit on socket ? Do you have other test equipment? -- don??? va3drl
|
Hi Tom, The triode section of the 6K8 is effectively not oscillating, and that explain all the voltage readings you got. There should be an open coil somewhere, or an open capacitor in the oscillator path. Are all the bands defective (aka not working) ? If all the coils windings are OK when checked with an ohmmeter, either C33 or C37 (or both !) can be “open”. ? 73, Jacques, VE2JFE in Montreal ? ? Newish member of this group, first time posting. I have an S-20R in need of repair. I am not a trained technician and am not particularly good at interpreting symptoms. However, I do have the chassis working just as it should from the grid of the first i.f. through the audio output. But the mixer stage is faulty—the LO is not oscillating. ? I have a voltage chart for an S-20R that was made up by a member of the Antique Radio Forum. The tube pin voltage readings on my chassis agree almost entirely with his chart, except for the 6K8 mixer. I’m posting the readings in the chart below. FYI—I took these readings with the chassis powered via a bucking transformer so that it runs on 117 vac. On the first line are his readings and on the second line, in red, are my own. FWIW, my voltage readings were made with a DMM, not a VTVM. ? 
? If it helps, here's the mixer section: If you’re familiar with these sets, you might recall that the underside of the 6K8 socket is a bit difficult to access because the oscillator coil assembly partially covers it. Maybe the symptoms I’m posting will point to a solution that would mean I won’t face the daunting task of partially disconnecting and? lifting the whole coil assembly.? :-) ? Any thoughts? Thank you, ? Tom
|
Newish member of this group, first time posting. I have an S-20R in need of repair. I am not a trained technician and am not particularly good at interpreting symptoms. However, I do have the chassis working just as it should from the grid of the first i.f. through the audio output. But the mixer stage is faulty—the LO is not oscillating.
?
I have a voltage chart for an S-20R that was made up by a member of the Antique Radio Forum. The tube pin voltage readings on my chassis agree almost entirely with his chart, except for the 6K8 mixer. I’m posting the readings in the chart below. FYI—I took these readings with the chassis powered via a bucking transformer so that it runs on 117 vac. On the first line are his readings and on the second line, in red, are my own. FWIW, my voltage readings were made with a DMM, not a VTVM.
?
?
If it helps, here's the mixer section:
If you’re familiar with these sets, you might recall that the underside of the 6K8 socket is a bit difficult to access because the oscillator coil assembly partially covers it. Maybe the symptoms I’m posting will point to a solution that would mean I won’t face the daunting task of partially disconnecting and ?lifting the whole coil assembly.? :-)
?
Any thoughts? Thank you,
?
Tom
|
Re: For Sale - Hallicrafters R-274/FRR with speaker
Ok Dwight,
I’m planning a trip to the observatory in the next few weeks pending weather. I’ll need to get contact and address from you. Do you want a deposit to hold the receiver (and possibly another one on your list)?
Thanks,
Tom
|
Re: For Sale - Hallicrafters R-274/FRR with speaker
No, you are the first one to claim it. So I will wait until you are in the area to hand it over to you.? The other Collins radios in the photo are also up for sale.?
?
?
|
Re: For Sale - Hallicrafters R-274/FRR with speaker
BTW, have you sold your R-274?
?
Tom ?N5AMA
|
Re: S-85: how are the RF amplifier tube (v1) and the MIX/OSC tube (v2) coupled in band1?
Well, you and I seem to differ on the value of that thread. I learned
several things from folks here who have a wealth of knowledge.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 2/27/25 16:28, edward schumacher wrote: So new thread started on the same dead horse. how many weeks will this
one run?
On Thursday, February 27, 2025 at 04:09:43 PM CST, don Root
<drootofallevil@...> wrote:
Maynard, yes wording is tough.? “C62”? had been started..? then it moved
To me it showed that it was thought to be needed? for? a simple coil,
but not for a transformer? .. A version
Then when the B came along? with two coils, they moved it ?a bit.
*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Maynard Wright via
groups.io
*Sent:* Thursday, February 27, 2025 3:38 PM
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [HallicraftersRadios] S-85: how are the RF amplifier tube
(v1) and the MIX/OSC tube (v2) coupled in band1?
Hi, Don,
When I said that there is no C62 equivalent in the S-40A, I meant that
there is no capacitor like C62 that is connected around the switching
and resonant circuits so that it is completely independent of the
setting of the bandswitch.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
On 2/27/25 11:49, don Root wrote:
Maynard on the S-40A,? C62 is ??in use on band 2 only but connects V1
and V2?? like in the B version …I think.
We need somebody to LRC a sample switch.
*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Maynard Wright via
groups.io
*Sent:* Thursday, February 27, 2025 11:16 AM
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [HallicraftersRadios] S-85: how are the RF amplifier tube
(v1) and the MIX/OSC tube (v2) coupled in band1?
Note that the S-40A uses an entirely different arrangement of coils and
capacitors and has no equivalent to C62 in the S-40B.
So why is the S-40B equipped with C62? Maybe switch S1B in the S-85
exhibits a higher capacitance between the two rotary segments than does
S1B in the S-40B, making C62 unnecessary to achieve the desired coupling
capacitance in the S-85.
Although the parts numbers are the same, maybe Hallicrafters used a
different switch vendor for the S-85.
Knowing this would matter only if someone were restoring a receiver and
expected a part number for one type to represent the same exact part for
another type. And maybe that's the case. But I haven't thought about
that until now.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
--
don??? va3drl
--
don??? va3drl
|
Re: S-85: how are the RF amplifier tube (v1) and the MIX/OSC tube (v2) coupled in band1?
So new thread started on the same dead horse. how many weeks will this one run?? ?52 ? ? HOPE IT BEGINS TO WORK -- don??? va3drl
|
Re: S-85: how are the RF amplifier tube (v1) and the MIX/OSC tube (v2) coupled in band1?
So new thread started on the same dead horse. how many weeks will this one run?
On Thursday, February 27, 2025 at 04:09:43 PM CST, don Root <drootofallevil@...> wrote:
Maynard, yes wording is tough.? “C62”? had been started..? then it moved ? To me it showed that it was thought to be needed? for? a simple coil, but not for a transformer? .. A version Then when the B came along? with two coils, they moved it ?a bit.
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Maynard Wright via groups.io
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2025 3:38 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HallicraftersRadios] S-85: how are the RF amplifier tube (v1) and the MIX/OSC tube (v2) coupled in band1? ? Hi, Don,
When I said that there is no C62 equivalent in the S-40A, I meant that
there is no capacitor like C62 that is connected around the switching
and resonant circuits so that it is completely independent of the
setting of the bandswitch.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
On 2/27/25 11:49, don Root wrote: Maynard on the S-40A,? C62 is ??in use on band 2 only but connects V1
and V2?? like in the B version …I think.
We need somebody to LRC a sample switch.
*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Maynard Wright via
groups.io
*Sent:* Thursday, February 27, 2025 11:16 AM
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [HallicraftersRadios] S-85: how are the RF amplifier tube
(v1) and the MIX/OSC tube (v2) coupled in band1?
Note that the S-40A uses an entirely different arrangement of coils and
capacitors and has no equivalent to C62 in the S-40B.
So why is the S-40B equipped with C62? Maybe switch S1B in the S-85
exhibits a higher capacitance between the two rotary segments than does
S1B in the S-40B, making C62 unnecessary to achieve the desired coupling
capacitance in the S-85.
Although the parts numbers are the same, maybe Hallicrafters used a
different switch vendor for the S-85.
Knowing this would matter only if someone were restoring a receiver and
expected a part number for one type to represent the same exact part for
another type. And maybe that's the case. But I haven't thought about
that until now.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
--
don??? va3drl
--
don??? va3drl
|
Re: S-85: how are the RF amplifier tube (v1) and the MIX/OSC tube (v2) coupled in band1?
Hi Jim , and all; ?revising numbering ?makes it tough to compare things !!!! So the Halli C62 function remains? ?despite our communication inability. ? I guess that it one reason I often take a snip of what I? See on the drawing and circle it?? etc. ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jim Whartenby via groups.io
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2025 5:14 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HallicraftersRadios] S-85: how are the RF amplifier tube (v1) and the MIX/OSC tube (v2) coupled in band1?? The S-40B Photofact Folder that I copied calls it C7 but it is still a 2.2 pF cap just as is C62.? Sam's has a format that they follow so their component designations are not the same as hallicrafters, especially after several hallicrafters S-40 revisions. -- don??? va3drl
|
Re: S-85: how are the RF amplifier tube (v1) and the MIX/OSC tube (v2) coupled in band1?
Maynard FYI ??S-40 [no suffix]?? This seems to have no C62 and looks like “your” 40A at first glance? ..SO? maybe you have an early run manual of the “40A” ? ? FYI ??S-40A I was using= ??? ? Another thing, the bias/AVC line to V1 changed when going to the 40B, so it needed that C33? because L3 was not a transformer.
? ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Maynard Wright via groups.io
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2025 3:51 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HallicraftersRadios] S-85: how are the RF amplifier tube (v1) and the MIX/OSC tube (v2) coupled in band1?? And my S-40A schematic is from Sam's Photofacts (via the Web) and it
doesn't have C62 as in your schematic nor does it use independent
designation of each component, but labels them with numbers referred to
the table of components. So more than one component can have the same
number.
So I suspect that your schematic excerpt is from the S-40A Hallicrafters
manual, which looks (in your excerpt) more like the S-40B and S-85
schematics I have from Hallicrafters manuals. But I don't have that manual.
Since those two schematics don't agree, I wonder whether there was a
revision during production of the S-40A.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP ? -- don??? va3drl
|
Re: S-85: how are the RF amplifier tube (v1) and the MIX/OSC tube (v2) coupled in band1?
The S-40B Photofact Folder that I copied calls it C7 but it is still a 2.2 pF cap just as is C62.? Sam's has a format that they follow so their component designations are not the same as hallicrafters, especially after several hallicrafters S-40 revisions. See:?? Jim
Logic: Method used to arrive at the wrong conclusion, with confidence.? Murphy
And my S-40A schematic is from Sam's Photofacts (via the Web) and it
doesn't have C62 as in your schematic nor does it use independent
designation of each component, but labels them with numbers referred to
the table of components. So more than one component can have the same
number.
So I suspect that your schematic excerpt is from the S-40A Hallicrafters
manual, which looks (in your excerpt) more like the S-40B and S-85
schematics I have from Hallicrafters manuals. But I don't have that manual.
Since those two schematics don't agree, I wonder whether there was a
revision during production of the S-40A.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
On 2/27/25 12:38, Maynard Wright wrote: Hi, Don,
When I said that there is no C62 equivalent in the S-40A, I meant that
there is no capacitor like C62 that is connected around the switching
and resonant circuits so that it is completely independent of the
setting of the bandswitch.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
On 2/27/25 11:49, don Root wrote:
Maynard on the S-40A,? C62 is ??in use on band 2 only but connects V1
and V2?? like in the B version …I think.
We need somebody to LRC a sample switch.
*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Maynard Wright
via groups.io
*Sent:* Thursday, February 27, 2025 11:16 AM
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [HallicraftersRadios] S-85: how are the RF amplifier
tube (v1) and the MIX/OSC tube (v2) coupled in band1?
Note that the S-40A uses an entirely different arrangement of coils and
capacitors and has no equivalent to C62 in the S-40B.
So why is the S-40B equipped with C62? Maybe switch S1B in the S-85
exhibits a higher capacitance between the two rotary segments than does
S1B in the S-40B, making C62 unnecessary to achieve the desired coupling
capacitance in the S-85.
Although the parts numbers are the same, maybe Hallicrafters used a
different switch vendor for the S-85.
Knowing this would matter only if someone were restoring a receiver and
expected a part number for one type to represent the same exact part for
another type. And maybe that's the case. But I haven't thought about
that until now.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
--
don??? va3drl
|
Re: S-85: how are the RF amplifier tube (v1) and the MIX/OSC tube (v2) coupled in band1?
Maynard, yes wording is tough.? “C62”? had been started..? then it moved ? To me it showed that it was thought to be needed? for? a simple coil, but not for a transformer? .. A version Then when the B came along? with two coils, they moved it ?a bit.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Maynard Wright via groups.io
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2025 3:38 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HallicraftersRadios] S-85: how are the RF amplifier tube (v1) and the MIX/OSC tube (v2) coupled in band1?? Hi, Don,
When I said that there is no C62 equivalent in the S-40A, I meant that
there is no capacitor like C62 that is connected around the switching
and resonant circuits so that it is completely independent of the
setting of the bandswitch.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
On 2/27/25 11:49, don Root wrote: Maynard on the S-40A,? C62 is ??in use on band 2 only but connects V1
and V2?? like in the B version …I think.
We need somebody to LRC a sample switch.
*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Maynard Wright via
groups.io
*Sent:* Thursday, February 27, 2025 11:16 AM
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [HallicraftersRadios] S-85: how are the RF amplifier tube
(v1) and the MIX/OSC tube (v2) coupled in band1?
Note that the S-40A uses an entirely different arrangement of coils and
capacitors and has no equivalent to C62 in the S-40B.
So why is the S-40B equipped with C62? Maybe switch S1B in the S-85
exhibits a higher capacitance between the two rotary segments than does
S1B in the S-40B, making C62 unnecessary to achieve the desired coupling
capacitance in the S-85.
Although the parts numbers are the same, maybe Hallicrafters used a
different switch vendor for the S-85.
Knowing this would matter only if someone were restoring a receiver and
expected a part number for one type to represent the same exact part for
another type. And maybe that's the case. But I haven't thought about
that until now.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
--
don??? va3drl -- don??? va3drl
|
Re: S-85: how are the RF amplifier tube (v1) and the MIX/OSC tube (v2) coupled in band1?
And my S-40A schematic is from Sam's Photofacts (via the Web) and it
doesn't have C62 as in your schematic nor does it use independent
designation of each component, but labels them with numbers referred to
the table of components. So more than one component can have the same
number.
So I suspect that your schematic excerpt is from the S-40A Hallicrafters
manual, which looks (in your excerpt) more like the S-40B and S-85
schematics I have from Hallicrafters manuals. But I don't have that manual.
Since those two schematics don't agree, I wonder whether there was a
revision during production of the S-40A.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 2/27/25 12:38, Maynard Wright wrote: Hi, Don,
When I said that there is no C62 equivalent in the S-40A, I meant that
there is no capacitor like C62 that is connected around the switching
and resonant circuits so that it is completely independent of the
setting of the bandswitch.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
On 2/27/25 11:49, don Root wrote:
Maynard on the S-40A,? C62 is ??in use on band 2 only but connects V1
and V2?? like in the B version …I think.
We need somebody to LRC a sample switch.
*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Maynard Wright
via groups.io
*Sent:* Thursday, February 27, 2025 11:16 AM
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [HallicraftersRadios] S-85: how are the RF amplifier
tube (v1) and the MIX/OSC tube (v2) coupled in band1?
Note that the S-40A uses an entirely different arrangement of coils and
capacitors and has no equivalent to C62 in the S-40B.
So why is the S-40B equipped with C62? Maybe switch S1B in the S-85
exhibits a higher capacitance between the two rotary segments than does
S1B in the S-40B, making C62 unnecessary to achieve the desired coupling
capacitance in the S-85.
Although the parts numbers are the same, maybe Hallicrafters used a
different switch vendor for the S-85.
Knowing this would matter only if someone were restoring a receiver and
expected a part number for one type to represent the same exact part for
another type. And maybe that's the case. But I haven't thought about
that until now.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
--
don??? va3drl
|
Re: S-85: how are the RF amplifier tube (v1) and the MIX/OSC tube (v2) coupled in band1?
Hi, Don,
When I said that there is no C62 equivalent in the S-40A, I meant that
there is no capacitor like C62 that is connected around the switching
and resonant circuits so that it is completely independent of the
setting of the bandswitch.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 2/27/25 11:49, don Root wrote: Maynard on the S-40A,? C62 is ??in use on band 2 only but connects V1
and V2?? like in the B version …I think.
We need somebody to LRC a sample switch.
*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Maynard Wright via
groups.io
*Sent:* Thursday, February 27, 2025 11:16 AM
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [HallicraftersRadios] S-85: how are the RF amplifier tube
(v1) and the MIX/OSC tube (v2) coupled in band1?
Note that the S-40A uses an entirely different arrangement of coils and
capacitors and has no equivalent to C62 in the S-40B.
So why is the S-40B equipped with C62? Maybe switch S1B in the S-85
exhibits a higher capacitance between the two rotary segments than does
S1B in the S-40B, making C62 unnecessary to achieve the desired coupling
capacitance in the S-85.
Although the parts numbers are the same, maybe Hallicrafters used a
different switch vendor for the S-85.
Knowing this would matter only if someone were restoring a receiver and
expected a part number for one type to represent the same exact part for
another type. And maybe that's the case. But I haven't thought about
that until now.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
--
don??? va3drl
|
don Root
Allthumbs
Jacques_VE2JFE
Jim Whartenby