ken scharf ) writes:
Pete KE9OA wrote:
The only mechanical filters that I have seen problems with are the Japanese
units that you find in the JRC receivers. There is some sort of foam that
deteriorates over the years. I haven't seen a problem with Collins filters.
I have an old Collins filter made for the R390 series receivers. It is
a cylindrical filter with two pins at each end for connections. I can
hear something rattling around inside this filter as I tilt it from side
to side. Has something deteriorated inside this filter or is this
normal? A later rectangular Collins filter does NOT make this noise.

I don't think a noise is normal.

But, it's always possible that they can be dropped.

The issue Pete is talking about is that those Japanese filters were
made with different materials, and they decay with time.

Michael VE2BVW

Michael Black wrote:
ken scharf ) writes:
Pete KE9OA wrote:
The only mechanical filters that I have seen problems with are the Japanese
units that you find in the JRC receivers. There is some sort of foam that
deteriorates over the years. I haven't seen a problem with Collins filters.
I have an old Collins filter made for the R390 series receivers. It is
a cylindrical filter with two pins at each end for connections. I can
hear something rattling around inside this filter as I tilt it from side
to side. Has something deteriorated inside this filter or is this
normal? A later rectangular Collins filter does NOT make this noise.

I don't think a noise is normal.

But, it's always possible that they can be dropped.

The issue Pete is talking about is that those Japanese filters were
made with different materials, and they decay with time.

Michael VE2BVW

My filter has never left the original Collins packing (heavy cotton
lining in a large cardboard box) since I got it at a hamfest years ago
(for a project that never happened). I remember the filter seemed ok
when I bought it, and it was NEVER dropped (by me anyway). Years later
when I found it while packing for a move I noticed it developed this
sound when handled.

Well, I think I'm just going to go with a modern, portable SWL receiver
for now. There are several very interesting models that are quite
cheap. New prices are about $150 for the newest and best of them.

I appreciate all the input and encouragement. I built my first
'Manhatten' constructed circuit this week - a VFO for the BITX20
transceiver. The good news it oscillates, the bad news is not at the
right frequency or the right spread but I've got an online buddy
helping me out and if nothing, I got off of dead center. I'm just
excited that it worked at all - AND - that I understand most of it and
how it works. I'm pretty sure I will understand it all before I'm
finished.

If you're intersted the radios I'm looking at are the Eton E5, Sony
ICF-SW7600G & GR, Degen/Kaito DE-1103 and a couple of other oddballs.
Hopefully I can snag one off of eBay.

Thanks again.

Dan KB9JLO

bcdlr wrote:
Guys that was a great discussion...
But I still have a question or two. Well actually a lot more than that
but we can't answer them all.
---
I know I'm not ready to build my own receiver, unless I went the micro
R2 route (I'm going to build one some day).
But that still doesn't solve my need for a ham band(s) receiver - to
use as a receiver and as a necessary piece of test equipment.
---
I know that the Drake 2b is good. But how easy (and cheap) is it to get
one? Are most "wore" out?
I've heard that a common ailment is that the mechanical filter will be
screwed up.
What are some receivers to look for (don't say the Collins - I don't
have enough money)?

You already know the names to look for: Kenwood, Icom,
Yaesu. Most names from the past are either junk by
modern standards, or are expensive collectors items.
You're already on the air, so *talk* to people. Hell, maybe
somebody has an old but still useful radio they're not
using. You'll never know if you don't ask.

There are indeed used professional receivers out there.
You will get an astonishing radio if it has a name on it like
Watkins-Johnson or Harris (two names that have shown
up in this thread), but just because they're less than
they were new doesn't mean they're cheap.

My advice: buy something decent, but don't fret too
much over just what it is. Once you have some
experience with whatever you end up buying, you'll
have a standard for comparison, and will know what
to look for.

You asked about software radios? (I abhor the term
SDR) Buzzword city, ultra-trendy, but I'd be surprised
if 1 ham in 100 really knew how they worked. Get it
right, though, and a software radio can do things no
hardware radio could dream of doing.

Laura Halliday VE7LDH "That's a totally illegal,
Grid: CN89mg madcap scheme. I like it!"
ICBM: 49 16.05 N 122 56.92 W - H. Pearce

laura halliday wrote:
There are indeed used professional receivers out there.
You will get an astonishing radio if it has a name on it like
Watkins-Johnson or Harris (two names that have shown
up in this thread), but just because they're less than
they were new doesn't mean they're cheap.

I spent about a day's salary on my WJ-8716. I contrast that with the
stuff I had thirty years ago and that's dirt cheap :-). In constant
dollars I spent way less on the WJ than on my HW-100 back then.

That said, I have a lot more fun with simple one-mode ham-band-only (or
a few-ham-bands or one-ham-band) receivers. The most fun ARE just a
step or two removed from the most simple. While the filters on my HW-16
aren't nearly as tight as those on the WJ-8716, the receiver of my
HW-16 feels MUCH more like a "window on a slice of the 40M CW band".

Once you have some
experience with whatever you end up buying, you'll
have a standard for comparison, and will know what
to look for.

A decent older ham-band transceiver is a fine place to start. Lots of
radios from the 80's on are also general-coverage receivers.

My advice is to not only listen and use and look "upscale", but look
and try out "downscale" too. Some steps down will be too far (for
example, I really do not enjoy direct conversion receivers although I
appreciate much of their simplicity) but some other will be "just
right".

Tim.

Tim Shoppa wrote:
laura halliday wrote:
There are indeed used professional receivers out there.
You will get an astonishing radio if it has a name on it like
Watkins-Johnson or Harris (two names that have shown
up in this thread), but just because they're less than
they were new doesn't mean they're cheap.

I spent about a day's salary on my WJ-8716. I contrast that with the
stuff I had thirty years ago and that's dirt cheap :-). In constant
dollars I spent way less on the WJ than on my HW-100 back then.

You got a bargain, and I'm envious. My RF-590 cost more
than my car, though that's not saying much. :-)

I made up for it with my 51J-4 (oops...sorry...it's a Collins!),
which I got for hauling it away.

That said, I have a lot more fun with simple one-mode ham-band-only (or
a few-ham-bands or one-ham-band) receivers. The most fun ARE just a
step or two removed from the most simple. While the filters on my HW-16
aren't nearly as tight as those on the WJ-8716, the receiver of my
HW-16 feels MUCH more like a "window on a slice of the 40M CW band".

The HW-16 is one of the great radios, and is an excellent
example of how simple a radio can be, and how well it
can work. I had one for a while, but it kept frying the QSK
switching transistor. :-(

There is an enormous amount of choice out there.
If you (the original poster) come across anything
that looks even remotely useful, grab it.

Laura Halliday VE7LDH "That's a totally illegal,
Grid: CN89mg madcap scheme. I like it!"
ICBM: 49 16.05 N 122 56.92 W - H. Pearce

"laura halliday" wrote in message
oups.com...
You asked about software radios? (I abhor the term
SDR) Buzzword city, ultra-trendy, but I'd be surprised
if 1 ham in 100 really knew how they worked.

Does 1 ham in 100 really know how an FM demodulator works anymore?

bcdlr wrote:
Guys that was a great discussion...
But I still have a question or two. Well actually a lot more than that
but we can't answer them all.
---
I know I'm not ready to build my own receiver, unless I went the micro
R2 route (I'm going to build one some day).
But that still doesn't solve my need for a ham band(s) receiver - to
use as a receiver and as a necessary piece of test equipment.
---
why not kill 2 birds with one stone?
for about $200.00 u can get the The Electroluminescent Receiver Kit
http://www.pan-tex.net/usr/r/receivers/
its a kit that is designed to be a teaching platform and the pads are large
enough to allow for multiple remove this and try that type mods.
$60.00 of that price is a digital read out.

Sam Morgan wrote:
why not kill 2 birds with one stone?
for about $200.00 u can get the The Electroluminescent Receiver Kit
http://www.pan-tex.net/usr/r/receivers/
its a kit that is designed to be a teaching platform and the pads are
large enough to allow for multiple remove this and try that type mods.
$60.00 of that price is a digital read out.

sorry, I forgot this part:
http://www.pan-tex.net/usr/r/receive...nstruction.htm
the "General Information About the Boards" is what sold me on the unit
there is so much info all scattered about on that site that it took me a while
to find that part

Sam, I have looked at this receiver a couple of times. The price is
quite attractive and I would get to build it to boot. I was just a
little skeptical.

Have any of you built one? Does it work well?

It sure looks like a hoot to build and use.

He also has a 'basic' one band receiver kit as well. Don't remember
much about it.

Dan KB9JLO

Sam Morgan wrote:
Sam Morgan wrote:
why not kill 2 birds with one stone?
for about $200.00 u can get the The Electroluminescent Receiver Kit
http://www.pan-tex.net/usr/r/receivers/
its a kit that is designed to be a teaching platform and the pads are
large enough to allow for multiple remove this and try that type mods.
$60.00 of that price is a digital read out.