|
I wonder if anyone has looked at a modification to the HT-44 to provide a CW mode offset in transceive?? I tried adjusting C1 in the HT-44 to get an offset in the area of 500-700 Hz, but could get it up to only about 200 Hz with minimum setting of C1.??
?
73, Floyd - K8AC
|
Floyd,
?
I have the same twins (plus the HT45)
?
It would appear that using a varicap,? "switched-in" when selecting CW would probably do the job.? It would require a little experimentation though.....
?
I'm not seeing much advantage in taking the time to do a modification like that when there's a knob called "VFO Selector" on the transmitter that does the job quite nicely .......(actually better)
?
?
--
73/Rick
W7IMM
__________________________________
All posts are created using free and opensource? Linux
|
It seems to me that having differential tuning for RX and TX serves
two purposes: one is to tune a received signal that is drifting
slightly, the other, and I think what is meant here, is to set the tone
of a received CW signal without changing the transmit frequency. This is
really a reason for having an adjustable BFO. The Receiver should really
be zeroed on the received frequency and the tone set via a variable BFO.
Standard practice with separate RX and TX. Where the BFO is fixed, as it
sometimes is in receivers designed mainly for SSB, it is necessary to
compromise the receiver tuning. Do any tranceivers actually have a way
to change the received CW tone without changing the receiver frequency?
I have only older Drake and Kenwood stuff intended mainly for SSB, none
is ideal for CW where my Drake separates work very well.
Separates sounds familier, does it refer to ladies underwear or bed
sheets? Can't remember.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 11/22/2024 12:36 PM, Rick W7IMM via groups.io wrote: Floyd,
I have the same twins (plus the HT45)
It would appear that using a varicap,? "switched-in" when selecting CW
would probably do the job.? It would require a little experimentation
though.....
I'm not seeing much advantage in taking the time to do a modification
like that when there's a knob called "VFO Selector" on the transmitter
that does the job quite nicely .......(actually better)
--
73/Rick
W7IMM
__________________________________
All posts are created using free and opensource? Linux
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL
SKCC 19998
|
|
|
"Do any tranceivers actually have a way
to change the received CW tone without changing the receiver frequency?'
?
Sure -? Many of the modern HF transceivers have a "CW tone/pitch" control that allows you to change the CW pitch without changing the Rx freq. I can't think of any of the vintage tube xcvrs that had that feature, but maybe someone knows of one. My TR4CW/RIT only has a RIT control, which changes the Rx freq along with the CW tone.?
?
Bob K3AC
In a message dated 11/22/2024 4:12:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, 1oldlens1@... writes:
?
Do any tranceivers actually have a way
to change the received CW tone without changing the receiver frequency?
|
My Swan 270B and 350B shift the oscillator between receive and transmit
so that you can transmit and receive on the same frequency but still
have nice receive audio tone frequency.
But tuning so that the transmit lands on the frequency of the other
station is not easy, at least for me, if you do it by ear. I've used
various methods, including zerobeating a guitar tuner with audio tone
output. This becomes important if the other station is using a narrow
CW filter.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 11/22/24 13:12, Richard Knoppow via groups.io wrote: It seems to me that having differential tuning for RX and TX serves
two purposes: one is to tune a received signal that is drifting
slightly, the other, and I think what is meant here, is to set the tone
of a received CW signal without changing the transmit frequency. This is
really a reason for having an adjustable BFO. The Receiver should really
be zeroed on the received frequency and the tone set via a variable BFO.
Standard practice with separate RX and TX. Where the BFO is fixed, as it
sometimes is in receivers designed mainly for SSB, it is necessary to
compromise the receiver tuning. Do any tranceivers actually have a way
to change the received CW tone without changing the receiver frequency?
I have only older Drake and Kenwood stuff intended mainly for SSB, none
is ideal for CW where my Drake separates work very well.
Separates sounds familier, does it refer to ladies underwear or bed
sheets? Can't remember.
On 11/22/2024 12:36 PM, Rick W7IMM via groups.io wrote:
Floyd,
I have the same twins (plus the HT45)
It would appear that using a varicap,? "switched-in" when selecting CW
would probably do the job.? It would require a little experimentation
though.....
I'm not seeing much advantage in taking the time to do a modification
like that when there's a knob called "VFO Selector" on the transmitter
that does the job quite nicely .......(actually better)
--
73/Rick
W7IMM
__________________________________
All posts are created using free and opensource? Linux
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL
SKCC 19998
|
Yes. The entire SR series of transceivers has receiver incremental tuning, RIT. Hallicrafters had the original patten on the RIT concept and was the first?to go into production with it.
Walt Cates, WD0GOF
?
A majority of acceptance is not proof of correctness.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
"Do
any tranceivers actually have a way
to
change the received CW tone without changing the receiver frequency?'
?
Sure
-? Many of the modern HF transceivers have a "CW tone/pitch" control that allows you to change the CW pitch without changing the Rx freq. I can't think of any of the vintage tube xcvrs that had that feature, but maybe someone knows of one. My TR4CW/RIT only
has a RIT control, which changes the Rx freq along with the CW tone.?
?
Bob
K3AC
In a message dated 11/22/2024 4:12:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, 1oldlens1@... writes:
?
Do any tranceivers actually have a way
to change the received CW tone without changing the receiver frequency?
|
On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 03:36 PM, Rick W7IMM wrote:
I'm not seeing much advantage in taking the time to do a modification like that when there's a knob called "VFO Selector" on the transmitter that does the job quite nicely .......(actually better)
Rick, I'm afraid that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.? When I'm operating in a CW contest in search-and-pounce mode, when I want to call a station I hear, I want to be able to hit the key immediately without turning any other knobs.? Turning the VFO Selector knob solves that how?
?
73, Floyd - K8AC
|
On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 05:39 PM, waltcates wrote:
Yes. The entire SR series of transceivers has receiver incremental tuning, RIT. Hallicrafters had the original patten on the RIT concept and was the first?to go into production with it.
Wow - everyone has missed the point entirely.? Guess there aren't many folks using Hallicrafters gear in CW mode, particularly in contests.? I will go into greater detail and hope I don't offend anyone.??
?
Note: all of the following applies to the HT-44 with the rear slide switch in XCVE (transceive) mode.? The goal here is: when you tune in a CW station on the SX-117 (with the HT44 slide switch in XCVE mode), you want the HT-44 to be tuned TO THE SAME FREQUENCY AS THAT OF THE STATION YOU'RE HEARING.? That way, the station you're calling will hear you at a reasonable pitch.? But, when setting up the SX-117 and HT-44 for receive mode, you adjust C1 for zero beat, putting the transmitter and receiver on exactly the same frequency.? For SSB, that's exactly what you want and it works perfectly.? But, for transceiving in CW mode, you want the two to be offset by the frequency of the CW tone you like to hear - say, 600 to 700 Hz.? On my HT-44, the range of adjustment of C1 can provide an offset of around 200 Hz, not enough.? Many early manufacturers of transceive capable gear got this offset thing wrong - notably Collins.? If you wanted to transceive in CW mode on the S Line, you ended up with an offset of 1.5 Khz in some cases and that's simply not usable.? Drake got this right in their 4 Line with a fixed offset of around 700 Hz.? In SSB mode, the offset is zero, but switching to CW changes it to 700 Hz.??
?
So, what I'm after is being able to shift the frequency of the HT-44 carrier oscillator by 600-700 Hz in an adjustable fashion so that I can still put it back to 1650 Khz for SSB operation.? Not something I'd often do, so a screwdriver adjustment is entirely acceptable.? In the HT-44, the crystal frequency is varied by adjusting C1, a capacitor in parallel with the crystal.? You can also adjust the frequency of a crystal oscillator using a capacitor in series with the crystal.? A good way to do that in the HT-44 might be to use varicap diodes.? But, pulling a crystal frequency has limitations and in this case, I have no idea how far we could actually pull the crystal frequency without some negative effects.? Hence my original question: has anyone actually done this and how did it work out?? ?Some academic papers I've read on the subject of pulling a crystal frequency indicate that 50 ppm might be the limit, but it depends upon the crystal cut and a lot of other factors.??
?
And, yes, an RIT function would satisfy my requirement but that doesn't exist on the SX-117.? Fiddling with the BFO frequency does NOT solve the problem and no need to explain that here.? For now, I continue to use the SX-117/HT-44 for CW in the NORM mode, having to switch the Operation switch to CAL and turning the HT-44 VFO to the desired frequency.??
?
73, Floyd - K8AC
?
|
Floyd,
I've operated old separates here in some contests and definitely
feel your pain.? The only set I have that works easily is the
Collins S line but even to get that behaving properly took some
modifications.? So my rule here now on contesting with old gear is
to run, and not do any S&P, with the separates.??
If I am needing to do S&P as well, then I will use something
like the TR4C or other era similar transceiver for the S&P
stuff as it's much easier to be QRG agile with it.? And I have the
pleasure of adding more heat to the shack while I'm at it.? :)?
Not really a specific solution to this issue but it does have the
attraction of getting contest Qs without having to do any rig
mods.?
73/jeff/ac0c
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
On 11/23/2024 8:44 AM, Floyd - K8AC via
groups.io wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 05:39 PM, waltcates wrote:
Yes. The entire SR series of transceivers has
receiver incremental tuning, RIT. Hallicrafters had the
original patten on the RIT concept and was the first?to go
into production with it.
Wow - everyone has missed the point entirely.? Guess there
aren't many folks using Hallicrafters gear in CW mode,
particularly in contests.? I will go into greater detail and
hope I don't offend anyone.??
?
Note: all of the following applies to the HT-44 with the rear
slide switch in XCVE (transceive) mode.? The goal here is: when
you tune in a CW station on the SX-117 (with the HT44 slide
switch in XCVE mode), you want the HT-44 to be tuned TO THE SAME
FREQUENCY AS THAT OF THE STATION YOU'RE HEARING.? That way, the
station you're calling will hear you at a reasonable pitch.?
But, when setting up the SX-117 and HT-44 for receive mode, you
adjust C1 for zero beat, putting the transmitter and receiver on
exactly the same frequency.? For SSB, that's exactly what you
want and it works perfectly.? But, for transceiving in CW mode,
you want the two to be offset by the frequency of the CW tone
you like to hear - say, 600 to 700 Hz.? On my HT-44, the range
of adjustment of C1 can provide an offset of around 200 Hz, not
enough.? Many early manufacturers of transceive capable gear got
this offset thing wrong - notably Collins.? If you wanted to
transceive in CW mode on the S Line, you ended up with an offset
of 1.5 Khz in some cases and that's simply not usable.? Drake
got this right in their 4 Line with a fixed offset of around 700
Hz.? In SSB mode, the offset is zero, but switching to CW
changes it to 700 Hz.??
?
So, what I'm after is being able to shift the frequency of
the HT-44 carrier oscillator by 600-700 Hz in an adjustable
fashion so that I can still put it back to 1650 Khz for SSB
operation.? Not something I'd often do, so a screwdriver
adjustment is entirely acceptable.? In the HT-44, the crystal
frequency is varied by adjusting C1, a capacitor in parallel
with the crystal.? You can also adjust the frequency of a
crystal oscillator using a capacitor in series with the
crystal.? A good way to do that in the HT-44 might be to use
varicap diodes.? But, pulling a crystal frequency has
limitations and in this case, I have no idea how far we could
actually pull the crystal frequency without some negative
effects.? Hence my original question: has anyone actually done
this and how did it work out?? ?Some academic papers I've read
on the subject of pulling a crystal frequency indicate that 50
ppm might be the limit, but it depends upon the crystal cut and
a lot of other factors.??
?
And, yes, an RIT function would satisfy my requirement but
that doesn't exist on the SX-117.? Fiddling with the BFO
frequency does NOT solve the problem and no need to explain that
here.? For now, I continue to use the SX-117/HT-44 for CW in the
NORM mode, having to switch the Operation switch to CAL and
turning the HT-44 VFO to the desired frequency.??
?
73, Floyd - K8AC
?
|
I suppose it would add extra steps in the process.....I guess I'm implying that the HT44/SX117 (or any separate transmitter/receiver combo)? wouldn't be my "go-to" set up for rapid "contest" like operation.?
?
I would probably opt for something a little more "Modern" instead of modifying a vintage setup that was never really intended to do that.??? Not saying it can't or even shouldn't be done!? Are there extra points during CW contests for using vintage and separate T/R gear?
?
73/Rick
W7IMM
__________________________________
All posts are created using free and opensource? Linux
|
Couldn't agree more with "?instead of modifying a vintage setup that was never really intended to do that."Th
If you want to stay with vintage equipment. The Hallicreafters SR-150 is a transceiver with RIT built in and is comparable in performance to the 44/117. Any of the SR series from the three band SR 160 and 500 through the SR 2000 will give you that feture.
Walt Cates, WD0GOF
?
A majority of acceptance is not proof of correctness.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I suppose it would add extra steps in the process.....I guess I'm implying that the HT44/SX117 (or any separate transmitter/receiver combo)? wouldn't be my "go-to" set up for rapid "contest" like operation.?
?
I would probably opt for something a little more "Modern" instead of modifying a vintage setup that was never really intended to do that.??? Not saying it can't or even shouldn't be done!? Are there extra points during CW contests
for using vintage and separate T/R gear?
?
73/Rick
W7IMM
__________________________________
All posts are created using free and opensource? Linux
|
At least some contests use a points multiplier that consists of the sum
of the ages of the transmitter and receiver whether or not they are
combined in a transceiver. I sometimes use an Elmac AF-67 transmitter
(1953) and a BC-342 receiver (1942) for that purpose. More often a
S-40B receiver (1953), giving up a few points.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 11/23/24 14:36, Rick W7IMM via groups.io wrote: I suppose it would add extra steps in the process.....I guess I'm
implying that the HT44/SX117 (or any separate transmitter/receiver
combo)? wouldn't be my "go-to" set up for rapid "contest" like operation.
I would probably opt for something a little more "Modern" instead of
modifying a vintage setup that was never really intended to do that.
Not saying it can't or even shouldn't be done!? Are there extra points
during CW contests for using vintage and separate T/R gear?
73/Rick
W7IMM
__________________________________
All posts are created using free and opensource? Linux
|
FWIW, the Hallicrafters SX-115 “uber” receiver??has a CW pitch control. They cheaped out on the SX-117 unfortunately. The Collins 75S3B/C S-line??receiver did include a pitch/RIT control.
On Saturday, November 23, 2024, 5:43 PM, waltcates via groups.io <cateswa@...> wrote:
Couldn't agree more with "?instead of modifying a vintage setup that was never really intended to do that."Th
If you want to stay with vintage equipment. The Hallicreafters SR-150 is a transceiver with RIT built in and is comparable in performance to the 44/117. Any of the SR series from the three band SR 160 and 500 through the SR 2000 will give you that feture.
Walt Cates, WD0GOF
?
A majority of acceptance is not proof of correctness.
I suppose it would add extra steps in the process.....I guess I'm implying that the HT44/SX117 (or any separate transmitter/receiver combo)? wouldn't be my "go-to" set up for rapid "contest" like operation.?
?
I would probably opt for something a little more "Modern" instead of modifying a vintage setup that was never really intended to do that.??? Not saying it can't or even shouldn't be done!? Are there extra points during CW contests
for using vintage and separate T/R gear?
?
73/Rick
W7IMM
__________________________________
All posts are created using free and opensource? Linux
|
I ran these radios for years back in the late 70's into the mid 80's. I mostly operate CW and used them to contest many time (won the 10 meter contest for EPA one year). I really liked these radios and still have them.
They have been on the shelf for years so its been a while since I've used them but if I remember correctly I used the CAL adjustment to get the CW offset I liked.?
Tom W3TA
FWIW, the Hallicrafters SX-115 “uber” receiver??has a CW pitch control. They cheaped out on the SX-117 unfortunately. The Collins 75S3B/C S-line??receiver did include a pitch/RIT control.
On Saturday, November 23, 2024, 5:43 PM, waltcates via groups.io <cateswa@...> wrote:
Couldn't agree more with "?instead of modifying a vintage setup that was never really intended to do that."Th
If you want to stay with vintage equipment. The Hallicreafters SR-150 is a transceiver with RIT built in and is comparable in performance to the 44/117. Any of the SR series from the three band SR 160 and 500 through the SR 2000 will give you that feture.
Walt Cates, WD0GOF
?
A majority of acceptance is not proof of correctness.
I suppose it would add extra steps in the process.....I guess I'm implying that the HT44/SX117 (or any separate transmitter/receiver combo)? wouldn't be my "go-to" set up for rapid "contest" like operation.?
?
I would probably opt for something a little more "Modern" instead of modifying a vintage setup that was never really intended to do that.??? Not saying it can't or even shouldn't be done!? Are there extra points during CW contests
for using vintage and separate T/R gear?
?
73/Rick
W7IMM
__________________________________
All posts are created using free and opensource? Linux
|
On Sat, Nov 23, 2024 at 02:12 PM, Jeff AC0C wrote:
I've operated old separates here in some contests and definitely feel your pain.? The only set I have that works easily is the Collins S line but even to get that behaving properly took some modifications.? So my rule here now on contesting with old gear is to run, and not do any S&P, with the separates.??
If I am needing to do S&P as well, then I will use something like the TR4C or other era similar transceiver for the S&P stuff as it's much easier to be QRG agile with it.? And I have the pleasure of adding more heat to the shack while I'm at it.? :)?
Not really a specific solution to this issue but it does have the attraction of getting contest Qs without having to do any rig mods.?
One of the reasons I run some of my old stuff in CW contests is that it's a good way to root out forthcoming failures and design flaws.? I have the SX-117 and HT-44 to the point where I can run them around the clock for days with no problems.? The pair is actually a good CW station after dealing with the shortened first dit or dot problem and the hum in the receiver.? The receiver selectivity of around 500 Hz is adequate.? The lack of CW offset is a real drawback to any CW operation, contest or not and I will fix that soon.? Meanwhile, you're right of course about the S&P operation.? Running is the best option and with 15 meters wide open now, I can achieve pretty decent run rates.? Shortcomings in CW operation was not unique to the Hallicrafters stuff and was one of many reasons why the Japanese companies ate their lunch in the early 70s.??
?
73, Floyd - K8AC
|
On Sat, Nov 23, 2024 at 05:36 PM, Rick W7IMM wrote:
I suppose it would add extra steps in the process.....I guess I'm implying that the HT44/SX117 (or any separate transmitter/receiver combo)? wouldn't be my "go-to" set up for rapid "contest" like operation.?
?
I would probably opt for something a little more "Modern" instead of modifying a vintage setup that was never really intended to do that.??? Not saying it can't or even shouldn't be done!? Are there extra points during CW contests for using vintage and separate T/R gear?
?
?
At my age and with my poor propagation location, doing well in the contests isn't really my goal.? I have other rigs that comprise a modern station that are capable of all mode contest operation.? I use the old rigs in CW contests because it's fun and a good way to shake out bugs in the gear.? Along the way, I tend to make modifications that improve the operation of the gear for my type of operation.? I don't have any "shelf queens" type of rigs - they're all in operation and maintained at a high level.??
?
73, Floyd - K8AC
|
On Sat, Nov 23, 2024 at 05:43 PM, waltcates wrote:
Couldn't agree more with "?instead of modifying a vintage setup that was never really intended to do that."Th
?
If you want to stay with vintage equipment. The Hallicreafters SR-150 is a transceiver with RIT built in and is comparable in performance to the 44/117. Any of the SR series from the three band SR 160 and 500 through the SR 2000 will give you that feture.
?
Hi Walt.? Well, I guess the drive to make old stuff better is just in my bloodstream.? Some guys collect old stuff and display it on shelves and never turn it on.? Nice to look at.? That's just not me.? I tend to try and make stuff as good as it can be with relatively minor modifications.? Been doing that for the past 50-60 years, ever since I put a product detector in my first HRO-60.
?
Your comment about the RIT the other day got me thinking about solutions to the offset problem and I've decided that's the best solution.? ? It's a lot simpler to shift the receiver VFO frequency than to diddle with the crystal oscillator in the transmitter.? There are spare contacts in the HT-44 relay that can be used to send an offset voltage to varicap diodes installed in the receiver VFO.? You're right about the RIT in those SR transceivers, but they have another fatal flaw for CW operation.? From reading the manuals, it appears that the only CW filtering available is a 200 Hz position and it's that or the SSB bandwidth.? Simply not suitable for general CW opeation - just too narrow and I'll bet the slopes are rather broad below 6 dB.? Most rigs of the period that had CW filtering had a single 500 Hz bandwidth that was switched in automatically in CW mode.??
?
73, Floyd - K8AC
|
On Sat, Nov 23, 2024 at 11:21 PM, Robert Needleman wrote:
FWIW, the Hallicrafters SX-115 “uber” receiver??has a CW pitch control. They cheaped out on the SX-117 unfortunately. The Collins 75S3B/C S-line??receiver did include a pitch/RIT control.
When the SX-115 came out, a club member volunteered it's use for Field Day, replacing a 75A4 in our 80/40 meter CW station.? Turns out it suffered terribly from IMD problems and by midnight one of the members went home to get the 75A4 and we replaced the SX-115.??
?
73, Floyd - K8AC
|
On Sun, Nov 24, 2024 at 07:26 AM, thoyer wrote:
I ran these radios for years back in the late 70's into the mid 80's. I mostly operate CW and used them to contest many time (won the 10 meter contest for EPA one year). I really liked these radios and still have them.
?
They have been on the shelf for years so its been a while since I've used them but if I remember correctly I used the CAL adjustment to get the CW offset I liked.?
?
The CAL control wouldn't do that.? When running in transceive mode, you're using only the one VFO and any change with the CAL knob would affect both receive and transmit.??
?
|
Floyd - K8AC
Rick W7IMM
don Root
waltcates