Maynard I think Emanuele alluded to the idea that he saw a gimmick across the wafer so that must be the replacement for the C62 in the S-40B. It can be hard to identify a gimmick, all depending on its details.? I am betting on the gimmick now as the mysterious missing link.
?
Just maybe your question means omission of C62 or the gimmick ?? ¡ but going one step further a poor gimmick can morph into no gimmick and too little coupling. My guess is the gimmick is there and ok.? Part of the reason is that the RF and the mixer tanks both have the same alignment problem, and Emanuele has repeated it, and the resonant curve peaks of the tanks seem to be too low in frequency, so that is still the situation.
RE L6, the two coils should have quite different inductance as you said, but it would seem better for L6 not to have mutual inductance like L3., but maybe I¡¯m missing something. We will see. ??????????
From:[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Maynard Wright via groups.io Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 9:42 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!
?
Don,
I think that idea has merit. I have problems with the idea that the S-85 is intended to have nothing where C62 is located in the S-40B because everything else looks the same on the schematics, I think.
I wonder whether accidental omission of C62 would still allow sufficient stray coupling (think "accidental gimmick") so that the S-85 would function but not be subject to proper alignment on Bands 1 and 2.
The two halves of L6 need not have the same inductance because an examination of the switch shows that they are cut in separately on the two bands and the frequency ranges involved would require different inductances for resonance.