|
Emanuele, this is late. Your statement here seems to eliminate the idea that the BS setting is the problem. The other day while taking my truck tire off at a tire place, the hex part of the security nut shattered, leaving a small bit holding the wheel on and no way to get it loose. Finally today a mechanic guy worked and worked and finally got it out. It takes persistence sometimes. ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Emanuele Girlando via groups.io
Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2025 5:21 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HallicraftersRadios] S-85 refurbish: I've got a problem during the RF alignment of bands 1 and 2 - trimcaps don't peak!? Richard, we do cross posted. Today I also started to think the band spread variable capacitor was stringed reversed.. But I checked it and, in fully clockwise position (the one indicated for alignment), the cap is at minimal capacitance (blades all out). -- don??? va3drl
|
Richard what does turning the dial clockwise ?actually mean? If it was a rotating pointer on a fixed scale it is fairly clear that the POINTER rotates CW. And the numbers stay fixed, but on a rotating scale with a fixed pointer, the physical scale might rotate CW but the values on the scale might be going up or down as you rotate. If they had a 1…100 scale ?one could just say turn it to position 1 or 100, but? I fear the use of CW,CCW with Rotating dials or Rotating scales ?can be confusing.? ? the condition while attempting aligning is that there might just be too much capacitance.. obvious on two bands in 2 tanks each. So now in this wonky situation, just to see what id going on. Ignore all that and try to get the tanks to resonate higher?? ?by ensuring the ?BS capacitor rotor itself is wide open. ?I thought Emanuele said he did that, but I’m not sure. ?? ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Richard Knoppow via groups.io
Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2025 7:00 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HallicraftersRadios] S-85 refurbish: I've got a problem during the RF alignment of bands 1 and 2 - trimcaps don't peak!? Note that the direction of the dial and knob for bandspread are
reversed. See instructions about replacing the dial string. The index
mark on the dials is at the LOW end, with capacitors fully meshed. I
read this over carefully. The _band set_ position of the band spread is
with the dial at the high frequency end of each band, that is, capacitor
UN meshed. but the instructions for setting the dials is to fully mesh
the caps and use the index mark at the low end of both dials.
Also, a note states that the LO is at ABOVE the signal on all bands
except the highest (band 4) where it is below the signal (as I suspected).
The problem with clockwise and counter-clockwise is whether this is
the knob or dial direction, because they are opposite. However, looking
at the capacitor plates is unmistakable. Fully meshed for dial stringing
and setting the reference of the dials, band spread fully open when
setting the main dial for frequency and for alignment.
On 2/6/2025 2:25 PM, don Root wrote: Richard you deleted my image in the reference so others might wonder
about some stuff missing, but no real matter there.
My thought to verify the bandspread is simply to turn the BS dial CW ?
and knob? ?CW and look at the BS capacitor meshing. It should be open!
??right? ?If somehow it is not it needs fixing first.
If it is ok, it’s back to square one. We will have to recruit a real expert.
Richard ?FYI only now:
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL
SKCC 19998
-- don??? va3drl
|
Guys,
I performed a complete RF alignment once again.
I used a sig-gen and the SA just as a "receiver" to "see" the LO signal and followed the service manual instructions.
LO was fine in all bands with LO signal higher than the signal by the IF value (452KHz in my case) in all bands but the n. 4 where it was below.
The dials track the sig-gen signal with very low error in all bands.
The ANT and MIX trimcaps of bands 1&2 didn't peak, exactly as before. I had to leave them fully released (lower C) to get the MAX output possible.
During alignment the BS dial knob was fully CW and , I confirm once again, the BS cap had the plates all out (minimum capacity).
The radio performs well in all bands but the lower part of band 1 (<1MHz, as before).
?
I decided to leave it alone, I give up.
?
Thank you very much for your precious support, guys.
Ciao.
Emanuele (IU1KNR).
?
?
|
Put it aside but don't give up on it.
How did you decide the IF frequency? When the IF has a crystal
filter the crystal determines the exact IF frequency but when there is
no crystal you just set the signal generator to the frequency defined in
the instructions, nearly always 455 Khz. The signal for aligning the IF
can be injected into the converter tube as per instructions, i.e. pin 8
through a 0.02uF cap. Actually, the IF can usually be aligned by feeding
the 455 signal into the antenna terminals. with the signal frequency at
about the middle of the dial. Set the signal generator for a weak
signal, you want no more signal than will overcome noise. Peak the six
adjustments to tune the IF to exactly 455 Khz and also adjust the BFO to
zero beat (also in the instructions. I don't think being off by a couple
of Khz is causing your problems but you might as well do it correctly. I
would go over the three IF transformers a couple of times to make sure
they are peaked and there is no interaction (should not be).
Now, what is going on here? A second receiver, or the SA, can
listen to the local oscillator. Make a sniffer loop to put over the
converter tube. check its frequency over the range on the broadcast
band. It should be 455 Khz _above_ the signal frequency at all points.
At the lowest frequency, say 540 Khz, the LO should be at 995 Khz. Check
it at three or four points up the dial. It should be reasonably close to
the signal plus 455 Khz all over. If you can't find it at the bottom end
start at mid point, or wherever you can receive some sort of signal and
tune down until it stops. What is the result of this? Since the
oscillator works at higher bands its not likely to be a short from dirt
or a bend in the plates but that is sill worth looking for. Make sure
you are not measuring the frequency wrong somehow. The problem is
impossible meaning something is being missed.
Poke at it some more and post back. I am fascinated by this and
don't mind at all trying to help. Lets save this antique, probably a
pretty good receiver when working and I suspect the problem is some sort
of illusion, look at it from a different angle and it may show up. DO
NOT GIVE UP.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 2/7/2025 1:01 PM, Emanuele Girlando via groups.io wrote: Guys,
I performed a complete RF alignment once again.
I used a sig-gen and the SA just as a "receiver" to "see" the LO signal
and followed the service manual instructions.
LO was fine in all bands with LO signal higher than the signal by the IF
value (452KHz in my case) in all bands but the n. 4 where it was below.
The dials track the sig-gen signal with very low error in all bands.
The ANT and MIX trimcaps of bands 1&2 didn't peak, exactly as before. I
had to leave them fully released (lower C) to get the MAX output possible.
During alignment the BS dial knob was fully CW and , I confirm once
again, the BS cap had the plates all out (minimum capacity).
The radio performs well in all bands but the lower part of band 1
(<1MHz, as before).
I decided to leave it alone, I give up.
Thank you very much for your precious support, guys.
Ciao.
Emanuele (IU1KNR).
<>
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL
SKCC 19998
|
Emanuele ???RE I decided to leave it alone, I give up.? ?Don’t do that, the radio is 99.777% ?, just some strange thing left. It’s ok to take a break and let the brain cool down. I follow your comments again; all very clear.?? In my sleep, it came to mind that the main dial scale must be set properly. You no doubt have checked this, but maybe there was some slippage since then? 
So ?maybe there are set screws on the dial scale hub? .. that might slip? Also, you must know this but, at low frequencies, the RF tanks will tune much narrower, and so a bit of? unwanted offset will knock the signal down greatly. Why not do a test: instead of setting the RF band 1 trimmers, at 1400 , set them at ?the low end 600,700? ..and see if they [RF1 and mixer tanks] can be tuned down there by turning the trimmers CW, and if it “aligns”, then try the ?real sensitivity at the low end using the antenna.? If it won’t align there, maybe take a scan of the tanks responses at say 600KCs so you can see if they are too high or too low. I hope you understand my wording. Then you might learn if it ?“tunes low” ?all over the band, or one end is low and the other hi. ?Since you have that Fancy HP gadget you must be able the verify the resonant curves of all tanks at the Hi and the Low end of the band{s}. OF course this is not aligning, it is testing ?to find out where things go wrong. ???????? Must be late there by now spero che tu stia dormendo bene
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Emanuele Girlando via groups.io
Sent: Friday, February 7, 2025 4:02 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HallicraftersRadios] S-85 refurbish: I've got a problem during the RF alignment of bands 1 and 2 - trimcaps don't peak!? I performed a complete RF alignment once again. I used a sig-gen and the SA just as a "receiver" to "see" the LO signal and followed the service manual instructions. LO was fine in all bands with LO signal higher than the signal by the IF value (452KHz in my case) in all bands but the n. 4 where it was below. The dials track the sig-gen signal with very low error in all bands. The ANT and MIX trimcaps of bands 1&2 didn't peak, exactly as before. I had to leave them fully released (lower C) to get the MAX output possible. During alignment the BS dial knob was fully CW and , I confirm once again, the BS cap had the plates all out (minimum capacity). The radio performs well in all bands but the lower part of band 1 (<1MHz, as before). I decided to leave it alone, I give up. Thank you very much for your precious support, guys. -- don??? va3drl
|
? Emanuele and all This is from BAMA for mark 1A and 1B? and makes no sense to me, ???so I rewired it at the right. What say you all?? Do you go with Halligans version?
Don ?end -- don??? va3drl
|
I agree that the lefthand diagram seems wrong. Note the arrows that
show rotation in opposite directions to synchronize the contacts on the
wafer as you view each side of the wafer.
It seems to me that the lefthand diagram would leave the RF path open on
bands 1 and 2. I think that you wrote that you listened to all of the
bands successfully. If I am correct in that, maybe there is a stray
coupling path around the input tuned circuits that couples enough RF to
make the receiver usable, maybe with the AVC raising the overall gain
quite a bit or with the AVC disabled.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 2/7/25 19:27, don Root wrote: **
Emanuele and all
This is from BAMA for mark 1A and 1B? and makes no sense to me, ???so I
rewired it at the right.
What say you all?? Do you go with Halligans version?
Don ?end
--
don??? va3drl
|
Another interesting thing about the diagram: The S-40B diagram has
"(FRONT)" and "(REAR)" but not "(FRONT) VIEWED FROM REAR" as for the
S-85. The S-40B diagram does show both clockwise and counterclockwise
rotations as does the S-85.
For the rotation to be correct when both counterclockwise and clockwise
directions are specified, the two sides of the wafer must be viewed from
different directions, the "FRONT" presumably from the front and the
"REAR" presumably from the rear.
Just be careful to keep track of which contacts are in use for a
particular position of the switch.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 2/7/25 19:27, don Root wrote: **
Emanuele and all
This is from BAMA for mark 1A and 1B? and makes no sense to me, ???so I
rewired it at the right.
What say you all?? Do you go with Halligans version?
Don ?end
--
don??? va3drl
|
Hi Maynard? , this was my posting not the OP Emanuele’s but I will convey my understanding. First off: this is one manual version or copy. Perhaps there are others that look correct.. And/or there could have been an addendum issued ?with each radio manual. Hoonoes??? Secondly, Emanuele’s ?actual radio might be wired OK. Emanuele did indicate that bands 3 ?and 4 were very good, but 1 and 2 suffered ?badly in the low half. Your reasoning about this is as good as any IMO .??? ? I was asking before if L3 is physically one coil form with 2 separate windings, which it seems to be; and like you say would likely have stray coupling magnetically. The second wafer shorts out? the “other not in use” coils, ?but ?the closeness of band 1 and 2 ??may well allow some coupling. In all probability this is just a drawing error, but somebody might have fixed It to match a drawing??? ???
?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Maynard Wright via groups.io
Sent: Saturday, February 8, 2025 3:14 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HallicraftersRadios] S-85 refurbish: I've got a problem during the RF alignment of bands 1 and 2 - trimcaps don't peak!? I agree that the lefthand diagram seems wrong. Note the arrows that
show rotation in opposite directions to synchronize the contacts on the
wafer as you view each side of the wafer.
It seems to me that the lefthand diagram would leave the RF path open on
bands 1 and 2. I think that you wrote that you listened to all of the
bands successfully. If I am correct in that, maybe there is a stray
coupling path around the input tuned circuits that couples enough RF to
make the receiver usable, maybe with the AVC raising the overall gain
quite a bit or with the AVC disabled.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
-- don??? va3drl
|
Maynard, the arrows inside the wafers do the trick for me, together with the “shown in band 4 position” general note. One of my first obstacles was understanding the first wafer; it was mucking me up.
End image
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Maynard Wright via groups.io
Sent: Saturday, February 8, 2025 3:35 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HallicraftersRadios] S-85 refurbish: I've got a problem during the RF alignment of bands 1 and 2 - trimcaps don't peak!? Another interesting thing about the diagram: The S-40B diagram has
"(FRONT)" and "(REAR)" but not "(FRONT) VIEWED FROM REAR" as for the
S-85. The S-40B diagram does show both clockwise and counterclockwise
rotations as does the S-85.
For the rotation to be correct when both counterclockwise and clockwise
directions are specified, the two sides of the wafer must be viewed from
different directions, the "FRONT" presumably from the front and the
"REAR" presumably from the rear.
Just be careful to keep track of which contacts are in use for a
particular position of the switch.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP -- don??? va3drl
|
Guys,
one of the reasons I wants to give up with this one is the poor design in the ANT RF circuitry.
I noticed the schematic diagram anomalies, both the 1&2 bands wiring error and the fancy S1A-REAR layout, at the same time as Don did. I was shocked and disappointed by that.
Days ago, while approaching the refurbishing project of my S-85, I did read that the SX-99 is a S-85 plus IF-XTAL and S-Meter. So I download the SX-99 schematic diagram to compare with but I discovered:
- the 1&2 bands wiring error and the fancy S1A-REAR layout are? exactly the same in SX-99 as in S-85; that was shocking and disappointing for the second time (!!).
- the ANT RF circuitry design has been completely reviewed in SX-99 eliminating TRIMCAPs and introducing a more useful antenna trimmer you can adjust while switching between? bands and/or connecting different antenna types input socket.
My conclusion was that the S-85 ANT circuit doesn't worth any additional effort to be understood or further analyzed: The Hallicrafters it self changed its design in successive projects..
Furthermore, IMHO, there is no point in having a ANT tuned circuit inside the radio when, in everyday use, you would have to retune it every time you change bands or the type of antenna connected to the radio. Consequently? I got the conclusion that leaving it as "wide" as possible sounds like a good choice.
?
In the hope of modifying my S-85 by reproducing the solution found in the SX-99, I also checked if the coils part numbers were the same but, unfortunately, they are not.
?
The only remaining test I want to do on this one is to align ANT and MIX RF stages with the chassis inside the cabinet.
In other words I want to check if the service manual statement:
?
?
should be read as: "RF alignment MUST be made with chassis in the cabinet. ...".
?
Thank you all once again.
--
Emanuele (IU1KNR).
|
Emanuele, no need to reply to this, it is more for others that have an S-85. I don’t blame you for being fed-up with this radio, and giving up; we all have had that feeling, ?but for the benefit of others we wonder if ?yours is wired as per the schematic, or is it actually wired like I suggested it should be. You seem to be very good at tackling all this stuff, so if the wiring is apparently wrong at R65, you no doubt changed it and tried it again, I would think but I saw no comment on that point. ? I don’t have an S-85, but, for any others with an S-85: does it have the same alignment problem?, and poor sensitivity below 1Mc? ….and is it wired as per the schematic? as I highlighted before? ?I don’t believe they BUILD them using a schematic, instead they use a more practical physical wiring drawing; so it is hard to believe that they went out the door wired, and working incorrectly, but I have seen worse cases when I was in industrial electronics manufacturing, so impossible things do happen, then I had to find and fix the impossible out in the field. The big boss says “ship it anyhow”, and QA ?succumbs. Emanuele mentioned the S-99 is an exact copy in some detailed respects, so I looked and found that the S-99 eliminates all capacitors for the 1st RF tanks and the slugs for bands 3,4.? ?It is interesting that? they still list C3 with L3, but C3 itself has vanished.. ???typical copy and paste draughting [drafting if you’re in USA] ?? ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Emanuele Girlando via groups.io
Sent: Sunday, February 9, 2025 12:56 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HallicraftersRadios] S-85 refurbish: I've got a problem during the RF alignment of bands 1 and 2 - trimcaps don't peak!? one of the reasons I wants to give up with this one is the poor design in the ANT RF circuitry. I noticed the schematic diagram anomalies, both the 1&2 bands wiring error and the fancy S1A-REAR layout, at the same time as Don did. I was shocked and disappointed by that. Days ago, while approaching the refurbishing project of my S-85, I did read that the SX-99 is a S-85 plus IF-XTAL and S-Meter. So I download the SX-99 schematic diagram to compare with but I discovered: 1.???? the 1&2 bands wiring error and the fancy S1A-REAR layout are? exactly the same in SX-99 as in S-85; that was shocking and disappointing for the second time (!!). 2.???? the ANT RF circuitry design has been completely reviewed in SX-99 eliminating TRIMCAPs and introducing a more useful antenna trimmer you can adjust while switching between? bands and/or connecting different antenna types input socket. My conclusion was that the S-85 ANT circuit doesn't worth any additional effort to be understood or further analyzed: The Hallicrafters it self changed its design in successive projects.. Furthermore, IMHO, there is no point in having a ANT tuned circuit inside the radio when, in everyday use, you would have to retune it every time you change bands or the type of antenna connected to the radio. Consequently? I got the conclusion that leaving it as "wide" as possible sounds like a good choice. In the hope of modifying my S-85 by reproducing the solution found in the SX-99, I also checked if the coils part numbers were the same but, unfortunately, they are not. The only remaining test I want to do on this one is to align ANT and MIX RF stages with the chassis inside the cabinet. In other words I want to check if the service manual statement: should be read as: "RF alignment MUST be made with chassis in the cabinet. ...". Thank you all once again. -- don??? va3drl
|
This all just doesn't sound right. Did this receiver EVER work? If
it did its not miswired. If it didn't how did it get through factory
alignment and QC? How did it get sold in the first place? If I
understand the complaint correctly half the broadcast band does not
work. That is a very big failure. This was a medium low priced receiver,
on the order of $90 when new. Not a cheap set and not a toy. In general
Hallicrafters did not make junk (with some exceptions) and usually
offered good value if not world class performance.
The comments about recieivers with antanna trimmers is just not
correct. Generally the trimmer or compensator is there to allow the use
of a variety of antennas while the lack of a trimmer means the input
wants something close to the impedance presented by the dummy antenna
prescribed. Generally, these receivers were meant to work from poor
antennas especiallay at the MF broadcast band, a couple of feet of wire
should be enough for local stations. It is certainly not going to be so
critical that the set won't work over half the band.
We are being led to believe that Hallicrafters design engineers
didn't know what they were doing and that their production engineers
didn't either. That no one on the line ever came to their supervisor
saying the set would not work over part of its range.
It IS possible for the schematic to be wrong. This is not what the
sets were build from, but what is in the set should work.
What is going on here?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 2/9/2025 9:55 AM, Emanuele Girlando via groups.io wrote: Guys,
one of the reasons I wants to give up with this one is the poor design
in the ANT RF circuitry.
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL
SKCC 19998
|
Hi, Don,
Oops! I lost track of who was doing what here.
I have only your diagram, not the S-85 manual, but note that when the
bandswitch is set to Band 1 or Band 2, antenna terminal A2 is not
connected to anything that provides continuity except for some possible
stray coupling. The manual for my S-40B shows the same circuit but with
Bands 1 and 2 as they should be.
The alignment instructions for the S-40B specify connection of A2 to G
using the supplied link, so they are ok. The operating instruction,
though, specify removal of the link when a doublet antenna with a
balanced feedline is used without pointing out that this would lead to a
connection of one side of the transmission line to A1 and the other
side, connected to A2, open.
If the S-85 manual is similar, it might be important to take into
account the disconnect of terminal A2 on Bands 1 and 2, depending on how
you are using the receiver or feeding it signals for adjustment.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 2/9/25 13:46, don Root wrote: Emanuele, no need to reply to this, it is more for others that have an
S-85. I don’t blame you for being fed-up with this radio, and giving up;
we all have had that feeling, ?but for the benefit of others we wonder
if ?yours is wired as per the schematic, or is it actually wired like I
suggested it should be. You seem to be very good at tackling all this
stuff, so if the wiring is apparently wrong at R65, you no doubt changed
it and tried it again, I would think but I saw no comment on that point.
I don’t have an S-85, but, for any others with an S-85: does it have the
same alignment problem?, and poor sensitivity below 1Mc? ….and is it
wired as per the schematic? as I highlighted before? ?I don’t believe
they BUILD them using a schematic, instead they use a more practical
physical wiring drawing; so it is hard to believe that they went out the
door wired, and working incorrectly, but I have seen worse cases when I
was in industrial electronics manufacturing, so impossible things do
happen, then I had to find and fix the impossible out in the field. The
big boss says “ship it anyhow”, and QA succumbs.
Emanuele mentioned the S-99 is an exact copy in *some detailed
respects*, so I looked and found that the S-99 eliminates all capacitors
for the 1^st RF tanks and the slugs for bands 3,4.? ?It is interesting
that? they still list C3 with L3, but C3 itself has vanished..
???typical copy and paste draughting [drafting if you’re in USA]
*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Emanuele Girlando
via groups.io
*Sent:* Sunday, February 9, 2025 12:56 PM
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [HallicraftersRadios] S-85 refurbish: I've got a problem
during the RF alignment of bands 1 and 2 - trimcaps don't peak!
Guys,
one of the reasons I wants to give up with this one is the poor design
in the ANT RF circuitry.
I noticed the schematic diagram anomalies, both the 1&2 bands wiring
error and the fancy S1A-REAR layout, at the same time as Don did. I was
shocked and disappointed by that.
Days ago, while approaching the refurbishing project of my S-85, I did
read that the SX-99 is a S-85 plus IF-XTAL and S-Meter. So I download
the SX-99 schematic diagram to compare with but I discovered:
1.the 1&2 bands wiring error and the fancy S1A-REAR layout are? exactly
the same in SX-99 as in S-85; that was shocking and disappointing for
the second time (!!).
2.the ANT RF circuitry design has been completely reviewed in SX-99
eliminating TRIMCAPs and introducing a more useful antenna trimmer you
can adjust while switching between? bands and/or connecting different
antenna types input socket.
My conclusion was that the S-85 ANT circuit doesn't worth any additional
effort to be understood or further analyzed: The Hallicrafters it self
changed its design in successive projects..
Furthermore, IMHO, there is no point in having a ANT tuned circuit
inside the radio when, in everyday use, you would have to retune it
every time you change bands or the type of antenna connected to the
radio. Consequently? I got the conclusion that leaving it as "wide" as
possible sounds like a good choice.
In the hope of modifying my S-85 by reproducing the solution found in
the SX-99, I also checked if the coils part numbers were the same but,
unfortunately, they are not.
The only remaining test I want to do on this one is to align ANT and MIX
RF stages with the chassis inside the cabinet.
In other words I want to check if the service manual statement:
should be read as: "RF alignment *_MUST_* be made with chassis in the
cabinet. ...".
Thank you all once again.
--
Emanuele (IU1KNR).
<>
--
don??? va3drl
|
Maynard I did not get that far. My coils between the hears are smoked now, How it works or doesn’t gets more mysterious by the hour. ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Maynard Wright via groups.io
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2025 12:04 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HallicraftersRadios] S-85 refurbish: I've got a problem during the RF alignment of bands 1 and 2 - trimcaps don't peak!? Hi, Don,
Oops! I lost track of who was doing what here.
I have only your diagram, not the S-85 manual, but note that when the
bandswitch is set to Band 1 or Band 2, antenna terminal A2 is not
connected to anything that provides continuity except for some possible
stray coupling. The manual for my S-40B shows the same circuit but with
Bands 1 and 2 as they should be.
The alignment instructions for the S-40B specify connection of A2 to G
using the supplied link, so they are ok. The operating instruction,
though, specify removal of the link when a doublet antenna with a
balanced feedline is used without pointing out that this would lead to a
connection of one side of the transmission line to A1 and the other
side, connected to A2, open.
If the S-85 manual is similar, it might be important to take into
account the disconnect of terminal A2 on Bands 1 and 2, depending on how
you are using the receiver or feeding it signals for adjustment.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
On 2/9/25 13:46, don Root wrote: Emanuele, no need to reply to this, it is more for others that have an
S-85. I don’t blame you for being fed-up with this radio, and giving up;
we all have had that feeling, ?but for the benefit of others we wonder
if ?yours is wired as per the schematic, or is it actually wired like I
suggested it should be. You seem to be very good at tackling all this
stuff, so if the wiring is apparently wrong at R65, you no doubt changed
it and tried it again, I would think but I saw no comment on that point.
I don’t have an S-85, but, for any others with an S-85: does it have the
same alignment problem?, and poor sensitivity below 1Mc? ….and is it
wired as per the schematic? as I highlighted before? ?I don’t believe
they BUILD them using a schematic, instead they use a more practical
physical wiring drawing; so it is hard to believe that they went out the
door wired, and working incorrectly, but I have seen worse cases when I
was in industrial electronics manufacturing, so impossible things do
happen, then I had to find and fix the impossible out in the field. The
big boss says “ship it anyhow”, and QA succumbs.
Emanuele mentioned the S-99 is an exact copy in *some detailed
respects*, so I looked and found that the S-99 eliminates all capacitors
for the 1^st RF tanks and the slugs for bands 3,4.? ?It is interesting
that? they still list C3 with L3, but C3 itself has vanished..
???typical copy and paste draughting [drafting if you’re in USA]
*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Emanuele Girlando
via groups.io
*Sent:* Sunday, February 9, 2025 12:56 PM
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [HallicraftersRadios] S-85 refurbish: I've got a problem
during the RF alignment of bands 1 and 2 - trimcaps don't peak!
Guys,
one of the reasons I wants to give up with this one is the poor design
in the ANT RF circuitry.
I noticed the schematic diagram anomalies, both the 1&2 bands wiring
error and the fancy S1A-REAR layout, at the same time as Don did. I was
shocked and disappointed by that.
Days ago, while approaching the refurbishing project of my S-85, I did
read that the SX-99 is a S-85 plus IF-XTAL and S-Meter. So I download
the SX-99 schematic diagram to compare with but I discovered:
1.the 1&2 bands wiring error and the fancy S1A-REAR layout are? exactly
the same in SX-99 as in S-85; that was shocking and disappointing for
the second time (!!).
2.the ANT RF circuitry design has been completely reviewed in SX-99
eliminating TRIMCAPs and introducing a more useful antenna trimmer you
can adjust while switching between? bands and/or connecting different
antenna types input socket.
My conclusion was that the S-85 ANT circuit doesn't worth any additional
effort to be understood or further analyzed: The Hallicrafters it self
changed its design in successive projects..
Furthermore, IMHO, there is no point in having a ANT tuned circuit
inside the radio when, in everyday use, you would have to retune it
every time you change bands or the type of antenna connected to the
radio. Consequently? I got the conclusion that leaving it as "wide" as
possible sounds like a good choice.
In the hope of modifying my S-85 by reproducing the solution found in
the SX-99, I also checked if the coils part numbers were the same but,
unfortunately, they are not.
The only remaining test I want to do on this one is to align ANT and MIX
RF stages with the chassis inside the cabinet.
In other words I want to check if the service manual statement:
should be read as: "RF alignment *_MUST_* be made with chassis in the
cabinet. ...".
Thank you all once again.
--
Emanuele (IU1KNR).
<>
--
don??? va3drl
-- don??? va3drl
|
Hi, Don,
I did check the S-40A schematic and it shows all the input coils wired
so that on all bands they can function as balanced input circuits unlike
the S-40B and S-85 that leave terminal A2 open on Bands 1 and 2.
Now, is the receiver really wired that way or is the schematic wrong?
Later today (or tomorrow) I'll turn my S-40B around and measure terminal
A2 (DC continuity to A1 and G) with the bandswitch in all 4 positions.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 2/9/25 23:57, don Root wrote: Maynard
<>
I did not get that far. My coils between the hears are smoked now, How
it works or doesn’t gets more mysterious by the hour.
*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Maynard Wright via
groups.io
*Sent:* Monday, February 10, 2025 12:04 AM
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [HallicraftersRadios] S-85 refurbish: I've got a problem
during the RF alignment of bands 1 and 2 - trimcaps don't peak!
Hi, Don,
Oops! I lost track of who was doing what here.
I have only your diagram, not the S-85 manual, but note that when the
bandswitch is set to Band 1 or Band 2, antenna terminal A2 is not
connected to anything that provides continuity except for some possible
stray coupling. The manual for my S-40B shows the same circuit but with
Bands 1 and 2 as they should be.
The alignment instructions for the S-40B specify connection of A2 to G
using the supplied link, so they are ok. The operating instruction,
though, specify removal of the link when a doublet antenna with a
balanced feedline is used without pointing out that this would lead to a
connection of one side of the transmission line to A1 and the other
side, connected to A2, open.
If the S-85 manual is similar, it might be important to take into
account the disconnect of terminal A2 on Bands 1 and 2, depending on how
you are using the receiver or feeding it signals for adjustment.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
On 2/9/25 13:46, don Root wrote:
Emanuele, no need to reply to this, it is more for others that have an
S-85. I don’t blame you for being fed-up with this radio, and giving up;
we all have had that feeling, ?but for the benefit of others we wonder
if ?yours is wired as per the schematic, or is it actually wired like I
suggested it should be. You seem to be very good at tackling all this
stuff, so if the wiring is apparently wrong at R65, you no doubt changed
it and tried it again, I would think but I saw no comment on that point.
I don’t have an S-85, but, for any others with an S-85: does it have the
same alignment problem?, and poor sensitivity below 1Mc? ….and is it
wired as per the schematic? as I highlighted before? ?I don’t believe
they BUILD them using a schematic, instead they use a more practical
physical wiring drawing; so it is hard to believe that they went out the
door wired, and working incorrectly, but I have seen worse cases when I
was in industrial electronics manufacturing, so impossible things do
happen, then I had to find and fix the impossible out in the field. The
big boss says “ship it anyhow”, and QA succumbs.
Emanuele mentioned the S-99 is an exact copy in *some detailed
respects*, so I looked and found that the S-99 eliminates all capacitors
for the 1^st RF tanks and the slugs for bands 3,4.? ?It is interesting
that? they still list C3 with L3, but C3 itself has vanished..
???typical copy and paste draughting [drafting if you’re in USA]
*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Emanuele Girlando
via groups.io
*Sent:* Sunday, February 9, 2025 12:56 PM
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [HallicraftersRadios] S-85 refurbish: I've got a problem
during the RF alignment of bands 1 and 2 - trimcaps don't peak!
Guys,
one of the reasons I wants to give up with this one is the poor design
in the ANT RF circuitry.
I noticed the schematic diagram anomalies, both the 1&2 bands wiring
error and the fancy S1A-REAR layout, at the same time as Don did. I was
shocked and disappointed by that.
Days ago, while approaching the refurbishing project of my S-85, I did
read that the SX-99 is a S-85 plus IF-XTAL and S-Meter. So I download
the SX-99 schematic diagram to compare with but I discovered:
1.the 1&2 bands wiring error and the fancy S1A-REAR layout are? exactly
the same in SX-99 as in S-85; that was shocking and disappointing for
the second time (!!).
2.the ANT RF circuitry design has been completely reviewed in SX-99
eliminating TRIMCAPs and introducing a more useful antenna trimmer you
can adjust while switching between? bands and/or connecting different
antenna types input socket.
My conclusion was that the S-85 ANT circuit doesn't worth any additional
effort to be understood or further analyzed: The Hallicrafters it self
changed its design in successive projects..
Furthermore, IMHO, there is no point in having a ANT tuned circuit
inside the radio when, in everyday use, you would have to retune it
every time you change bands or the type of antenna connected to the
radio. Consequently? I got the conclusion that leaving it as "wide" as
possible sounds like a good choice.
In the hope of modifying my S-85 by reproducing the solution found in
the SX-99, I also checked if the coils part numbers were the same but,
unfortunately, they are not.
The only remaining test I want to do on this one is to align ANT and MIX
RF stages with the chassis inside the cabinet.
In other words I want to check if the service manual statement:
should be read as: "RF alignment *_MUST_* be made with chassis in the
cabinet. ...".
Thank you all once again.
--
Emanuele (IU1KNR).
<>
< <>
--
don??? va3drl
|
Hi, Don,
I measured my S-40B's antenna terminals with an old analog VOM, so don't
take the measurements to be exceedingly precise, but I think that they
do tell the story:
Band A1-A2 A1-G A2-G
1 540-1680 kHz OPEN 1200 ohms OPEN
2 1680 kHz - 5.4 MHz OPEN 4 ohms OPEN
3 5.3 - 15.5 MHz 0.4 ohms OPEN OPEN
4 15.5 - 44 MHz 0.5 ohms OPEN OPEN
I conclude from this:
1. My S-40B (top of chassis stamped "AUG 3 1953"; back of chassis
stamped "70E937") does not have the input coils reversed as shown in the
schematic diagram;
2. My S-40B does feature the curious input wiring that would make a
balanced line input useless on bands 1 and 2.
Added to this, my S-40B is quite sensitive and usable on Bands 1 and 2.
I use it for CW QSOs on 80 meters (and 40 on Band 3). I have always
used it with the A2-G link in place and with an unbalanced input, so I
haven't previously noticed the curious input wiring.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 2/10/25 05:43, Maynard Wright via groups.io wrote: Hi, Don,
I did check the S-40A schematic and it shows all the input coils wired
so that on all bands they can function as balanced input circuits unlike
the S-40B and S-85 that leave terminal A2 open on Bands 1 and 2.
Now, is the receiver really wired that way or is the schematic wrong?
Later today (or tomorrow) I'll turn my S-40B around and measure terminal
A2 (DC continuity to A1 and G) with the bandswitch in all 4 positions.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
On 2/9/25 23:57, don Root wrote:
Maynard
<>
<
<>
I did not get that far. My coils between the hears are smoked now, How
it works or doesn’t gets more mysterious by the hour.
*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Maynard Wright
via
groups.io
*Sent:* Monday, February 10, 2025 12:04 AM
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [HallicraftersRadios] S-85 refurbish: I've got a problem
during the RF alignment of bands 1 and 2 - trimcaps don't peak!
Hi, Don,
Oops! I lost track of who was doing what here.
I have only your diagram, not the S-85 manual, but note that when the
bandswitch is set to Band 1 or Band 2, antenna terminal A2 is not
connected to anything that provides continuity except for some possible
stray coupling. The manual for my S-40B shows the same circuit but with
Bands 1 and 2 as they should be.
The alignment instructions for the S-40B specify connection of A2 to G
using the supplied link, so they are ok. The operating instruction,
though, specify removal of the link when a doublet antenna with a
balanced feedline is used without pointing out that this would lead to a
connection of one side of the transmission line to A1 and the other
side, connected to A2, open.
If the S-85 manual is similar, it might be important to take into
account the disconnect of terminal A2 on Bands 1 and 2, depending on how
you are using the receiver or feeding it signals for adjustment.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
On 2/9/25 13:46, don Root wrote:
Emanuele, no need to reply to this, it is more for others that have an
S-85. I don’t blame you for being fed-up with this radio, and giving up;
we all have had that feeling, ?but for the benefit of others we wonder
if ?yours is wired as per the schematic, or is it actually wired like I
suggested it should be. You seem to be very good at tackling all this
stuff, so if the wiring is apparently wrong at R65, you no doubt changed
it and tried it again, I would think but I saw no comment on that point.
I don’t have an S-85, but, for any others with an S-85: does it have the
same alignment problem?, and poor sensitivity below 1Mc? ….and is it
wired as per the schematic? as I highlighted before? ?I don’t believe
they BUILD them using a schematic, instead they use a more practical
physical wiring drawing; so it is hard to believe that they went out the
door wired, and working incorrectly, but I have seen worse cases when I
was in industrial electronics manufacturing, so impossible things do
happen, then I had to find and fix the impossible out in the field. The
big boss says “ship it anyhow”, and QA succumbs.
Emanuele mentioned the S-99 is an exact copy in *some detailed
respects*, so I looked and found that the S-99 eliminates all capacitors
for the 1^st RF tanks and the slugs for bands 3,4.? ?It is interesting
that? they still list C3 with L3, but C3 itself has vanished..
???typical copy and paste draughting [drafting if you’re in USA]
*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Emanuele Girlando
via groups.io
*Sent:* Sunday, February 9, 2025 12:56 PM
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [HallicraftersRadios] S-85 refurbish: I've got a problem
during the RF alignment of bands 1 and 2 - trimcaps don't peak!
Guys,
one of the reasons I wants to give up with this one is the poor design
in the ANT RF circuitry.
I noticed the schematic diagram anomalies, both the 1&2 bands wiring
error and the fancy S1A-REAR layout, at the same time as Don did. I was
shocked and disappointed by that.
Days ago, while approaching the refurbishing project of my S-85, I did
read that the SX-99 is a S-85 plus IF-XTAL and S-Meter. So I download
the SX-99 schematic diagram to compare with but I discovered:
1.the 1&2 bands wiring error and the fancy S1A-REAR layout are? exactly
the same in SX-99 as in S-85; that was shocking and disappointing for
the second time (!!).
2.the ANT RF circuitry design has been completely reviewed in SX-99
eliminating TRIMCAPs and introducing a more useful antenna trimmer you
can adjust while switching between? bands and/or connecting different
antenna types input socket.
My conclusion was that the S-85 ANT circuit doesn't worth any additional
effort to be understood or further analyzed: The Hallicrafters it self
changed its design in successive projects..
Furthermore, IMHO, there is no point in having a ANT tuned circuit
inside the radio when, in everyday use, you would have to retune it
every time you change bands or the type of antenna connected to the
radio. Consequently? I got the conclusion that leaving it as "wide" as
possible sounds like a good choice.
In the hope of modifying my S-85 by reproducing the solution found in
the SX-99, I also checked if the coils part numbers were the same but,
unfortunately, they are not.
The only remaining test I want to do on this one is to align ANT and MIX
RF stages with the chassis inside the cabinet.
In other words I want to check if the service manual statement:
should be read as: "RF alignment *_MUST_* be made with chassis in the
cabinet. ...".
Thank you all once again.
--
Emanuele (IU1KNR).
<>
< <>
< <>
<> <>
--
don??? va3drl
|
Well! The email system seems to have stripped the tabs out of my chart,
but I hope it's readable.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 2/10/25 09:34, Maynard Wright via groups.io wrote: Hi, Don,
I measured my S-40B's antenna terminals with an old analog VOM, so don't
take the measurements to be exceedingly precise, but I think that they
do tell the story:
Band A1-A2 A1-G A2-G
1 540-1680 kHz OPEN 1200 ohms OPEN
2 1680 kHz - 5.4 MHz OPEN 4 ohms OPEN
3 5.3 - 15.5 MHz 0.4 ohms OPEN OPEN
4 15.5 - 44 MHz 0.5 ohms OPEN OPEN
I conclude from this:
1. My S-40B (top of chassis stamped "AUG 3 1953"; back of chassis
stamped "70E937") does not have the input coils reversed as shown in the
schematic diagram;
2. My S-40B does feature the curious input wiring that would make a
balanced line input useless on bands 1 and 2.
Added to this, my S-40B is quite sensitive and usable on Bands 1 and 2.
I use it for CW QSOs on 80 meters (and 40 on Band 3). I have always
used it with the A2-G link in place and with an unbalanced input, so I
haven't previously noticed the curious input wiring.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
On 2/10/25 05:43, Maynard Wright via groups.io wrote:
Hi, Don,
I did check the S-40A schematic and it shows all the input coils wired
so that on all bands they can function as balanced input circuits unlike
the S-40B and S-85 that leave terminal A2 open on Bands 1 and 2.
Now, is the receiver really wired that way or is the schematic wrong?
Later today (or tomorrow) I'll turn my S-40B around and measure terminal
A2 (DC continuity to A1 and G) with the bandswitch in all 4 positions.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
On 2/9/25 23:57, don Root wrote:
Maynard
<>
<
<>
<
<>
<>
<>
I did not get that far. My coils between the hears are smoked now, How
it works or doesn’t gets more mysterious by the hour.
*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Maynard Wright
via
groups.io
*Sent:* Monday, February 10, 2025 12:04 AM
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [HallicraftersRadios] S-85 refurbish: I've got a problem
during the RF alignment of bands 1 and 2 - trimcaps don't peak!
Hi, Don,
Oops! I lost track of who was doing what here.
I have only your diagram, not the S-85 manual, but note that when the
bandswitch is set to Band 1 or Band 2, antenna terminal A2 is not
connected to anything that provides continuity except for some possible
stray coupling. The manual for my S-40B shows the same circuit but with
Bands 1 and 2 as they should be.
The alignment instructions for the S-40B specify connection of A2 to G
using the supplied link, so they are ok. The operating instruction,
though, specify removal of the link when a doublet antenna with a
balanced feedline is used without pointing out that this would lead to a
connection of one side of the transmission line to A1 and the other
side, connected to A2, open.
If the S-85 manual is similar, it might be important to take into
account the disconnect of terminal A2 on Bands 1 and 2, depending on how
you are using the receiver or feeding it signals for adjustment.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
On 2/9/25 13:46, don Root wrote:
Emanuele, no need to reply to this, it is more for others that have an
S-85. I don’t blame you for being fed-up with this radio, and giving up;
we all have had that feeling, ?but for the benefit of others we wonder
if ?yours is wired as per the schematic, or is it actually wired like I
suggested it should be. You seem to be very good at tackling all this
stuff, so if the wiring is apparently wrong at R65, you no doubt changed
it and tried it again, I would think but I saw no comment on that point.
I don’t have an S-85, but, for any others with an S-85: does it have the
same alignment problem?, and poor sensitivity below 1Mc? ….and is it
wired as per the schematic? as I highlighted before? ?I don’t believe
they BUILD them using a schematic, instead they use a more practical
physical wiring drawing; so it is hard to believe that they went out the
door wired, and working incorrectly, but I have seen worse cases when I
was in industrial electronics manufacturing, so impossible things do
happen, then I had to find and fix the impossible out in the field. The
big boss says “ship it anyhow”, and QA succumbs.
Emanuele mentioned the S-99 is an exact copy in *some detailed
respects*, so I looked and found that the S-99 eliminates all capacitors
for the 1^st RF tanks and the slugs for bands 3,4.? ?It is interesting
that? they still list C3 with L3, but C3 itself has vanished..
???typical copy and paste draughting [drafting if you’re in USA]
*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Emanuele Girlando
via groups.io
*Sent:* Sunday, February 9, 2025 12:56 PM
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [HallicraftersRadios] S-85 refurbish: I've got a problem
during the RF alignment of bands 1 and 2 - trimcaps don't peak!
Guys,
one of the reasons I wants to give up with this one is the poor design
in the ANT RF circuitry.
I noticed the schematic diagram anomalies, both the 1&2 bands wiring
error and the fancy S1A-REAR layout, at the same time as Don did. I was
shocked and disappointed by that.
Days ago, while approaching the refurbishing project of my S-85, I did
read that the SX-99 is a S-85 plus IF-XTAL and S-Meter. So I download
the SX-99 schematic diagram to compare with but I discovered:
1.the 1&2 bands wiring error and the fancy S1A-REAR layout are? exactly
the same in SX-99 as in S-85; that was shocking and disappointing for
the second time (!!).
2.the ANT RF circuitry design has been completely reviewed in SX-99
eliminating TRIMCAPs and introducing a more useful antenna trimmer you
can adjust while switching between? bands and/or connecting different
antenna types input socket.
My conclusion was that the S-85 ANT circuit doesn't worth any additional
effort to be understood or further analyzed: The Hallicrafters it self
changed its design in successive projects..
Furthermore, IMHO, there is no point in having a ANT tuned circuit
inside the radio when, in everyday use, you would have to retune it
every time you change bands or the type of antenna connected to the
radio. Consequently? I got the conclusion that leaving it as "wide" as
possible sounds like a good choice.
In the hope of modifying my S-85 by reproducing the solution found in
the SX-99, I also checked if the coils part numbers were the same but,
unfortunately, they are not.
The only remaining test I want to do on this one is to align ANT and MIX
RF stages with the chassis inside the cabinet.
In other words I want to check if the service manual statement:
should be read as: "RF alignment *_MUST_* be made with chassis in the
cabinet. ...".
Thank you all once again.
--
Emanuele (IU1KNR).
<>
< <>
< <>
<> <>
< <>
< <>
< <>
<> <>
--
don??? va3drl
|
It would be difficult to rewire the S-40B to allow balanced input on
Bands 1 and 2. The S-40A uses transformers with primary and secondary
windings and resonance of the secondaries on all four bands. The S-40B
does that same thing for Bands 3 and 4 but connects antenna terminal A1
directly to the "hot" end of each resonant coil for Bands 1 and 2, with
a series 1000 ohm resistor between A1 and the coil for Band 1. So there
are no primary windings for Bands 1 and 2.
If someone really wants a balanced input below 5.3 MHz with an S-40B or
S-85, it might be useful to wind a 1:1 input transformer to place
between the receiver and the transmission line.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 2/10/25 10:13, Maynard Wright via groups.io wrote: Well! The email system seems to have stripped the tabs out of my chart,
but I hope it's readable.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
On 2/10/25 09:34, Maynard Wright via groups.io wrote:
Hi, Don,
I measured my S-40B's antenna terminals with an old analog VOM, so don't
take the measurements to be exceedingly precise, but I think that they
do tell the story:
Band A1-A2 A1-G A2-G
1 540-1680 kHz OPEN 1200 ohms OPEN
2 1680 kHz - 5.4 MHz OPEN 4 ohms OPEN
3 5.3 - 15.5 MHz 0.4 ohms OPEN OPEN
4 15.5 - 44 MHz 0.5 ohms OPEN OPEN
I conclude from this:
1. My S-40B (top of chassis stamped "AUG 3 1953"; back of chassis
stamped "70E937") does not have the input coils reversed as shown in the
schematic diagram;
2. My S-40B does feature the curious input wiring that would make a
balanced line input useless on bands 1 and 2.
Added to this, my S-40B is quite sensitive and usable on Bands 1 and 2.
I use it for CW QSOs on 80 meters (and 40 on Band 3). I have always
used it with the A2-G link in place and with an unbalanced input, so I
haven't previously noticed the curious input wiring.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
On 2/10/25 05:43, Maynard Wright via groups.io wrote:
Hi, Don,
I did check the S-40A schematic and it shows all the input coils wired
so that on all bands they can function as balanced input circuits unlike
the S-40B and S-85 that leave terminal A2 open on Bands 1 and 2.
Now, is the receiver really wired that way or is the schematic wrong?
Later today (or tomorrow) I'll turn my S-40B around and measure terminal
A2 (DC continuity to A1 and G) with the bandswitch in all 4 positions.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
On 2/9/25 23:57, don Root wrote:
Maynard
<>
<
<>
<
<>
<>
<>
<
<>
<
<>
<
<>
<>
<>
I did not get that far. My coils between the hears are smoked now, How
it works or doesn’t gets more mysterious by the hour.
*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Maynard Wright
via
groups.io
*Sent:* Monday, February 10, 2025 12:04 AM
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [HallicraftersRadios] S-85 refurbish: I've got a problem
during the RF alignment of bands 1 and 2 - trimcaps don't peak!
Hi, Don,
Oops! I lost track of who was doing what here.
I have only your diagram, not the S-85 manual, but note that when the
bandswitch is set to Band 1 or Band 2, antenna terminal A2 is not
connected to anything that provides continuity except for some possible
stray coupling. The manual for my S-40B shows the same circuit but with
Bands 1 and 2 as they should be.
The alignment instructions for the S-40B specify connection of A2 to G
using the supplied link, so they are ok. The operating instruction,
though, specify removal of the link when a doublet antenna with a
balanced feedline is used without pointing out that this would lead to a
connection of one side of the transmission line to A1 and the other
side, connected to A2, open.
If the S-85 manual is similar, it might be important to take into
account the disconnect of terminal A2 on Bands 1 and 2, depending on how
you are using the receiver or feeding it signals for adjustment.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
On 2/9/25 13:46, don Root wrote:
Emanuele, no need to reply to this, it is more for others that have an
S-85. I don’t blame you for being fed-up with this radio, and giving up;
we all have had that feeling, ?but for the benefit of others we wonder
if ?yours is wired as per the schematic, or is it actually wired like I
suggested it should be. You seem to be very good at tackling all this
stuff, so if the wiring is apparently wrong at R65, you no doubt changed
it and tried it again, I would think but I saw no comment on that point.
I don’t have an S-85, but, for any others with an S-85: does it have the
same alignment problem?, and poor sensitivity below 1Mc? ….and is it
wired as per the schematic? as I highlighted before? ?I don’t believe
they BUILD them using a schematic, instead they use a more practical
physical wiring drawing; so it is hard to believe that they went out the
door wired, and working incorrectly, but I have seen worse cases when I
was in industrial electronics manufacturing, so impossible things do
happen, then I had to find and fix the impossible out in the field. The
big boss says “ship it anyhow”, and QA succumbs.
Emanuele mentioned the S-99 is an exact copy in *some detailed
respects*, so I looked and found that the S-99 eliminates all capacitors
for the 1^st RF tanks and the slugs for bands 3,4.? ?It is interesting
that? they still list C3 with L3, but C3 itself has vanished..
???typical copy and paste draughting [drafting if you’re in USA]
*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Emanuele Girlando
via groups.io
*Sent:* Sunday, February 9, 2025 12:56 PM
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [HallicraftersRadios] S-85 refurbish: I've got a problem
during the RF alignment of bands 1 and 2 - trimcaps don't peak!
Guys,
one of the reasons I wants to give up with this one is the poor design
in the ANT RF circuitry.
I noticed the schematic diagram anomalies, both the 1&2 bands wiring
error and the fancy S1A-REAR layout, at the same time as Don did. I was
shocked and disappointed by that.
Days ago, while approaching the refurbishing project of my S-85, I did
read that the SX-99 is a S-85 plus IF-XTAL and S-Meter. So I download
the SX-99 schematic diagram to compare with but I discovered:
1.the 1&2 bands wiring error and the fancy S1A-REAR layout are? exactly
the same in SX-99 as in S-85; that was shocking and disappointing for
the second time (!!).
2.the ANT RF circuitry design has been completely reviewed in SX-99
eliminating TRIMCAPs and introducing a more useful antenna trimmer you
can adjust while switching between? bands and/or connecting different
antenna types input socket.
My conclusion was that the S-85 ANT circuit doesn't worth any additional
effort to be understood or further analyzed: The Hallicrafters it self
changed its design in successive projects..
Furthermore, IMHO, there is no point in having a ANT tuned circuit
inside the radio when, in everyday use, you would have to retune it
every time you change bands or the type of antenna connected to the
radio. Consequently? I got the conclusion that leaving it as "wide" as
possible sounds like a good choice.
In the hope of modifying my S-85 by reproducing the solution found in
the SX-99, I also checked if the coils part numbers were the same but,
unfortunately, they are not.
The only remaining test I want to do on this one is to align ANT and MIX
RF stages with the chassis inside the cabinet.
In other words I want to check if the service manual statement:
should be read as: "RF alignment *_MUST_* be made with chassis in the
cabinet. ...".
Thank you all once again.
--
Emanuele (IU1KNR).
<>
< <>
< <>
<> <>
< <>
< <>
< <>
<> <>
< <>
< <>
< <>
<> <>
< <>
<> <>
<> <>
<> <>
--
don??? va3drl
|
I think the S-40B and S-85 are constructed so that the link from
the antenna terminals couples to the two highest bands as well as the
low bands. Redraw the circuit to see how this is done. I find this in a
number of receivers where I think it resulted in lowered manufacturing
cost. The coupling to the high bands is really direct rather than a
transformer.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 2/10/2025 5:43 AM, Maynard Wright via groups.io wrote: Hi, Don,
I did check the S-40A schematic and it shows all the input coils wired
so that on all bands they can function as balanced input circuits unlike
the S-40B and S-85 that leave terminal A2 open on Bands 1 and 2.
Now, is the receiver really wired that way or is the schematic wrong?
Later today (or tomorrow) I'll turn my S-40B around and measure terminal
A2 (DC continuity to A1 and G) with the bandswitch in all 4 positions.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL
SKCC 19998
|
don Root
Emanuele Girlando