"Frank" ) writes:
Steve Reinhardt wrote in message
news
Frank wrote:
Steve Reinhardt wrote in message
...

I just repaired my TR-3, and put it on the air. I'd forgotten what a
nice rig it is. Now, I've started to think about how much better it
could be. What if one was to rip out the entire frequency control
section (VFO, xtal osc, mixer, etc) and replace it with a DDS
synthesizer. It turns out that the display would fit in the opening of
the tuning dial. There would be excellent frequency stability, no
backwards tuning on 20M, 2-3 less tubes to save heat and power. It just
wouldn't be a Drake anymore...

And don't get me started on a lightweight switching supply to replace
the AC-3. I might do that anyway, since I wouldn't be destroying any
hardware.


ARC-5 Command Set receiver modification instructions for conversion to a
single band SSB transceiver.

Step 1. Remove all components except the variable capacitor...


Been there, done that. Well, not SSB, but my first rig (1969) was an
ARC-5 conversion. I actually got to keep quite a bit of the guts and
still make a few QSOs. It was paired with a Hammarlund HQ-120X...

Steve
AB1EN

They were fun... About twenty years ago I started a collection of ARC-5
stuff with the intentions of writing an ariticle for, perhaps, QST. I
actually have a copy (in pristine condition) of a publication (first
edition, first printing, April 1961) by Western Radio Amateur Magazine for
conversion of a BC-453 to a complete 40 meter transceiver. It was a design
by Ed Marriner, W6BLZ and Ernie Mason, W6IQY. Too bad not many Command Sets
are left---few remain after all the conversions and parting out. I had a
trailer full of the equipments that I eventually donated to a War Bird
restoration outfit. Perhaps your TR-3 (my first real SSB rig) would be
better off restored to like-new condition---there were considerably less
TR-3's manufactured than Command Sets.

But once again, equipment is meant to be used, not kept in a museum.

People converted all that old surplus stuff because it was cheap, plentiful,
and often didn't do what they wanted. Same reason people added things to
their commercial rigs; the additions made them better to the owner.

It's only years later that people are grumbling, because they want
pristine equipment for the sake of collections. Of course, one irony is
that some of the impact of the equipment today wouldn't mean anything
if there hadn't been culling from routine use over the past decades.
If I could still go into a local surplus store and buy a Command Set
transmitter for $9.95, as I did about 1972, then there'd be plenty of
them and little interest. It's only because of the culling that they have
become valuable.

Look at comic books. 35 years ago, I bought them to read. I didn't buy
them to collect them, I didn't buy them for the art. And when I was finished
with them, I got rid of them. They are valuable now because they were
used back then, and so they are now relatively rare. And of course,
some of those who want them so badly are the people who made the mistake
of getting rid of them decades ago. I include myself, though I don't
desire them enough to pay money for them. But in recent years, comic
books have become more about "collecting". Buy them, try to figure out
titles that will be valuable, and keep them "mint" in plastic bags from
the start. If you want to read them, then buy two copies. That will
ensure there will be a big supply decades from now, but it also means
there will be no appeal to them.

People could have decided decades ago to buy equipment for the future,
ie buy them keep them in the box and never use them. That would be the
best situation for the future collector. But then the equipment would
have never been used for its intended use, and not only would there be
an ample suply now, but if nobody had used the stuff back then, the appeal
of reliving the past would be less.

Michael VE2BVW

In article , Steve Reinhardt wrote:
I just repaired my TR-3, and put it on the air. I'd forgotten what a
nice rig it is. Now, I've started to think about how much better it
could be. What if one was to rip out the entire frequency control
section (VFO, xtal osc, mixer, etc) and replace it with a DDS
synthesizer. It turns out that the display would fit in the opening of
the tuning dial. There would be excellent frequency stability, no
backwards tuning on 20M, 2-3 less tubes to save heat and power. It just
wouldn't be a Drake anymore...

Drake already did that. They took a TR-4CW, converted it to all solid
state and repalced the PTO with a synthesizer. Called it the TR-5.

Nice rig, but they only sold around 1500 of them.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
You should have boycotted Google while you could, now Google supported
BPL is in action. Time is running out on worldwide radio communication.

"Drake already did that. They took a TR-4CW, converted it to all solid state
and repalced the PTO with a synthesizer. Called it the TR-5. Nice rig, but
they only sold around 1500 of them"

Nope I have a TR-5. It has an analog vfo. There is a separate
synthesizer for the TR-5, but it made of unobtanium and priced accordingly.

The TR-5 came out after the TR-7 with the intent of being a poor man's TR-7.
But, it was priced the same as the Japanese rigs with a synthesizer and many
more bells and whistles.

The TR-5 is really closer to a solid state KWM-2 than a solid state TR-4.
it is one of those perfect for your deserted island, where you cannot get
parts.

Colin K7FM

Frank wrote:
Steve Reinhardt wrote in message
news
Frank wrote:

Steve Reinhardt wrote in message
...


I just repaired my TR-3, and put it on the air. I'd forgotten what a
nice rig it is. Now, I've started to think about how much better it
could be. What if one was to rip out the entire frequency control
section (VFO, xtal osc, mixer, etc) and replace it with a DDS
synthesizer. It turns out that the display would fit in the opening of
the tuning dial. There would be excellent frequency stability, no
backwards tuning on 20M, 2-3 less tubes to save heat and power. It just
wouldn't be a Drake anymore...

And don't get me started on a lightweight switching supply to replace
the AC-3. I might do that anyway, since I wouldn't be destroying any
hardware.
---snip---

Perhaps your TR-3 (my first real SSB rig) would be
better off restored to like-new condition---there were considerably less
TR-3's manufactured than Command Sets.




Yeah, thus my point about getting a basket case to play with. My current
TR-3 will be cleaned up so it's representative of the best 1963 had to
offer. The 'new' one may fall under the doctor's knife (;-)...

Steve
AB1EN

In article . net,
COLIN LAMB wrote:
Nope I have a TR-5. It has an analog vfo. There is a separate
synthesizer for the TR-5, but it made of unobtanium and priced accordingly.

You're right. I just check the documentation. I was fooled by the external
VFO having being digitial.

From now on, I'll have to tune it more slowly. :-) I was assuming the
100Hz jumps were inherent in the synthesizer and are only the display.


The TR-5 came out after the TR-7 with the intent of being a poor man's TR-7.
But, it was priced the same as the Japanese rigs with a synthesizer and many
more bells and whistles.


Yes, I also have a TS-430s, which I think is around the same time. It has
AM send and receive (send may be DSRC, I don't remember), FM, more filter
options (TR-5 has one additional, TS-430 has one for SSB and one for CW),
8 memories, two "VFOs", etc. It also has a more sensitive receiver,
but it has a lot more noise.


The TR-5 is really closer to a solid state KWM-2 than a solid state TR-4.
it is one of those perfect for your deserted island, where you cannot get
parts.

That's for sure.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
You should have boycotted Google while you could, now Google supported
BPL is in action. Time is running out on worldwide radio communication.

In article , Steve Reinhardt wrote:
Yeah, thus my point about getting a basket case to play with. My current
TR-3 will be cleaned up so it's representative of the best 1963 had to
offer. The 'new' one may fall under the doctor's knife (;-)...

Since the TR-5 had an external DIGITAL VFO, maybe you should "convert"
your TR-3 that way. THen you have the best of both worlds. A pto for
tuning in that wandering signal by hand, and a Digital VFO for memories,
more solid frequency control etc.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
You should have boycotted Google while you could, now Google supported
BPL is in action. Time is running out on worldwide radio communication.