Re: SX-110 Dial Lamp Mystery
Well, this particular SX-110 appears to have been untouched since being built, and it was even stored in the original box and came with an original service manual.? The factory seal was still on the bottom of the cabinet. ?Nevertheless, I think I’ll pull the front panel off to see what the heck is going on behind there.? I agree with you – the lights should shine through.? The spacer (what I can see of it) appears to be solid. ? 73 – Steve, KW4H ? I am not sure but could someone have replaced the spacer? Could the original spacer been clear and now it isn't. I assure you the dial should be lit.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 10/16/2022 7:19 PM KW4H via groups.io <reedsteve@...> wrote: All, ? In the SX-110, there are two dial lamps for the bandspread slide-rule dial. Both of these lamps are at the base of the dial plate, and they mount behind the front panel (see circled lamps on photo). However, in actual operation they don't really provide any light to the slide-rule dial (see photos 2 and 3) because at the very bottom of the dial area, sandwiched in-between the chassis and the front panel is a spacer. The spacer belongs there -- it provides the correct spacing between the front panel and the dials.
So, in effect, those two dial lamps aren't really illuminating anything except themselves and the backside of the front of the chassis. The two holes the lamps stick into go nowhere except a dark hole.
Was this a design flaw with the SX-110? ? 73 – Steve, KW4H
|
Re: SX-110 Dial Lamp Mystery
I can only guess that there was a design update but they forgot about the lamps. As they were built the person installing the lamps did so without being told not to. Then got to the next step and that builder just let it be.
That's only a guess.
Bob. W4JFA?
All, ? In the SX-110, there are two dial lamps for the bandspread slide-rule dial. Both of these lamps are at the base of the dial plate, and they mount behind the front panel (see circled lamps on photo). However, in actual operation they don't really provide any light to the slide-rule dial (see photos 2 and 3) because at the very bottom of the dial area, sandwiched in-between the chassis and the front panel is a spacer. The spacer belongs there -- it provides the correct spacing between the front panel and the dials.
So, in effect, those two dial lamps aren't really illuminating anything except themselves and the backside of the front of the chassis. The two holes the lamps stick into go nowhere except a dark hole.
Was this a design flaw with the SX-110? ? 73 – Steve, KW4H
|
Re: SX-110 Dial Lamp Mystery
I am not sure but could someone have replaced the spacer?
Could the original spacer been clear and now it isn't.
I assure you the dial should be lit.
73,
Gary
WB6OGD
On 10/16/2022 7:19 PM KW4H via groups.io <reedsteve@...> wrote:
All,
?
In the SX-110, there are two dial lamps for the bandspread slide-rule dial. Both of these lamps are at the base of the dial plate, and they mount behind the front panel (see circled lamps on photo). However, in actual operation they don't really provide any light to the slide-rule dial (see photos 2 and 3) because at the very bottom of the dial area, sandwiched in-between the chassis and the front panel is a spacer. The spacer belongs there -- it provides the correct spacing between the front panel and the dials.
So, in effect, those two dial lamps aren't really illuminating anything except themselves and the backside of the front of the chassis. The two holes the lamps stick into go nowhere except a dark hole.
Was this a design flaw with the SX-110?
?
73 – Steve, KW4H
|
Re: SX-110 Dial Lamp Mystery
Any chance it lights the edge if the dial glass?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
All,
?
In the SX-110, there are two dial lamps for the bandspread slide-rule dial. Both of these lamps are at the base of the dial plate, and they mount behind the
front panel (see circled lamps on photo). However, in actual operation they don't really provide any light to the slide-rule dial (see photos 2 and 3) because at the very bottom of the dial area, sandwiched in-between the chassis and the front panel is a spacer.
The spacer belongs there -- it provides the correct spacing between the front panel and the dials.
So, in effect, those two dial lamps aren't really illuminating anything except themselves and the backside of the front of the chassis. The two holes the lamps stick into go nowhere except a dark hole.
Was this a design flaw with the SX-110?
?
73 – Steve, KW4H
|
All, ? In the SX-110, there are two dial lamps for the bandspread slide-rule dial. Both of these lamps are at the base of the dial plate, and they mount behind the front panel (see circled lamps on photo). However, in actual operation they don't really provide any light to the slide-rule dial (see photos 2 and 3) because at the very bottom of the dial area, sandwiched in-between the chassis and the front panel is a spacer. The spacer belongs there -- it provides the correct spacing between the front panel and the dials.
So, in effect, those two dial lamps aren't really illuminating anything except themselves and the backside of the front of the chassis. The two holes the lamps stick into go nowhere except a dark hole.
Was this a design flaw with the SX-110? ? 73 – Steve, KW4H
|
Group,
I need a project. Think I would like to write a repair guide for the HA-5, similar to the one for the HA-20. So, I am looking for a really cheap HA-5. It doesn't have to work. It needs to be complete, not butchered up, with a fairly good front panel.
?Walt Cates,
WD0GOF
?
Your past has no control over your future. Only your NOW can impact your future.
|
Hi Scott, Gary and the rest.. Excuse the intrusion, I now[ 2 hours after starting this] have forgotten my intention, so this is bit helter-skelter
You and others, mentioned dials that have rotating scales directly driven by the tuning capacitor shaft; which seem to be? what almost all earlier dials were on all radios, not mentioned is the rotating pointer, perhaps first derived from the Echophone ?EC-1, and EC-1A, and onto the S-38 early family, as well as slide rule dials which, I believe, began with the S-47, but we should not forget the “odometer” dial ?of the R-390 and family, but need to? exclude any comparison with “scales” of electronic digits. ? There would seem to be two separate points of discussion 1= overall Functionality 2= Appearance , not to forget Cost. It would seem that the 100% exposed rotating dial ?[with fixed or adjustable pointer] would be simplest as seen on earlier Hallicrafters;? and later the same [but most of dial is hidden] came the ?S-20R ?as I recall. ? I have not seen comments and or comparison regarding dial accuracy, or effective accuracy, or readability, or consistency or maintenance of dials and their systems. I wonder if there are any lingering around? ? For simple AM-BCB use a nice big slide rule or rotating Pointer can tell you if you are on your local 630 or 940 from 5 feet away, but you couldn’t do that with an S=20R, and would be tough with an S-19, but the s-38 and s-38D, E and SX-62 etc could do that.? ? When it comes to higher general shortwave use, ?even on AM, let alone CW, SSB ?it seems to me the dial is challenged, as is the stiction and friction in the capacitor and any gearing or pulleys. ? When it comes to the FEEL of tuning, there must be a big difference in the FEEL of an HRO? as compared to my old Heathkit AR-3. I still recall that the AR-3 could zoom across the band with one stronger but small twist, and then continue very slowly using a very light touch; all due to the “direct planetary drive” which must somehow ?include ?viscous damping ?that I never could see or really understand. I just ?came across of ?a demo of the SX-115 , and I can see the dial rotating … ? while I assume the scale rotates in the sx-117 and 112 as well as ?the 115, as I see it, ?the appearance of? SX-115 is dominated by the dial for better or worse. don VA3DRL
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of T. Scott Griffin
Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2022 2:14 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HallicraftersRadios] SX-110 History? I pretty much agree with Gary's comment that the change from the SX-99 to the SX-110 was a styling/marketing decision. I have recapped/refurbished both radios and they are electrically virtually identical. Hallicrafters may have been thinking about the competition from National in the mid-range priced communications receivers of the late 1950's. The NC-98 and NC-88 both have slide rule dials. However, Hallicrafters certainly did not abandon circular dials in later receivers such as the SX-117 and SX-122. I have worked on an SX-122 and it is a fine performing radio. Hammarlund, of course, paid no attention to these cosmetic changes, and stuck with circular dials all the way through to their HQ-180 series.?
As a teen-aged ham in the late 1950's I would have given anything to own one of these radios. All I could afford was an S-38B with a BC-453 as a Q-5er, and I had fun and learned a lot.?
73,
Scott
N6CIC ?
|
Hallicrafters and even the occasional Heathkit with that aqua trim
made me dizzy.....could only afford an SX-42 but used it
extensively.
Tom Latimer
On 10/15/2022 09:37, Joe Connor via
groups.io wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Did anything ever look better
than those 1960s Hallicrafters receiver ads in Popular
Electronics and Electronics Illustrated??But
those sets were way out of my price range. I had to make do
with a S-19 Sky Buddy that I bought for $5 from a repair shop
when the owner never came back to reclaim. Those were the
days, my friend.
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Joe
Connor
I pretty much agree with Gary's comment that the
change from the SX-99 to the SX-110 was a
styling/marketing decision. I have recapped/refurbished
both radios and they are electrically virtually
identical. Hallicrafters may have been thinking about
the competition from National in the mid-range priced
communications receivers of the late 1950's. The NC-98
and NC-88 both have slide rule dials. However,
Hallicrafters certainly did not abandon circular dials
in later receivers such as the SX-117 and SX-122. I have
worked on an SX-122 and it is a fine performing radio.
Hammarlund, of course, paid no attention to these
cosmetic changes, and stuck with circular dials all the
way through to their HQ-180 series.?
As a teen-aged ham in the late 1950's I would have given
anything to own one of these radios. All I could afford
was an S-38B with a BC-453 as a Q-5er, and I had fun and
learned a lot.?
73,
Scott
N6CIC
|
Yep, mine came out of my buddy’s (K?CDM) USAF stuff.? Although they were meant for “village chiefs” to inform us of the location or movement of VC and NVA personnel, they typically were MOSTLY? used by them to coordinate drug and black-market goods… ha ha ha. ? Yep, you could talk with ground-pounders using PRC-25s and the like. ? NOTE:? Mine actually HAS a Hallicrafters tag, but MOST had NO MARKINGS, being part of “company” programs.? (afforded deniability) ? Tom – W?EAJ ?-? USN RM ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 10/13/2022 1:17 PM, waltcates wrote: The HA-2 is getting rare. The ground to ground function was 30 to 40 MHz. The Air to ground function was 115 to 135 MHz. If it doesn't have the ground to ground/air to ground switch it is an HT1E. ? ?
|
Did anything ever look better than those 1960s Hallicrafters receiver ads in Popular Electronics and Electronics Illustrated??But those sets were way out of my price range. I had to make do with a S-19 Sky Buddy that I bought for $5 from a repair shop when the owner never came back to reclaim. Those were the days, my friend.
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Joe Connor
On Saturday, October 15, 2022 at 02:13:33 AM EDT, T. Scott Griffin <scottandalene@...> wrote:
I pretty much agree with Gary's comment that the change from the SX-99 to the SX-110 was a styling/marketing decision. I have recapped/refurbished both radios and they are electrically virtually identical. Hallicrafters may have been thinking about the competition from National in the mid-range priced communications receivers of the late 1950's. The NC-98 and NC-88 both have slide rule dials. However, Hallicrafters certainly did not abandon circular dials in later receivers such as the SX-117 and SX-122. I have worked on an SX-122 and it is a fine performing radio. Hammarlund, of course, paid no attention to these cosmetic changes, and stuck with circular dials all the way through to their HQ-180 series.?
As a teen-aged ham in the late 1950's I would have given anything to own one of these radios. All I could afford was an S-38B with a BC-453 as a Q-5er, and I had fun and learned a lot.?
73,
Scott
N6CIC
|
I pretty much agree with Gary's comment that the change from the SX-99 to the SX-110 was a styling/marketing decision. I have recapped/refurbished both radios and they are electrically virtually identical. Hallicrafters may have been thinking about the competition from National in the mid-range priced communications receivers of the late 1950's. The NC-98 and NC-88 both have slide rule dials. However, Hallicrafters certainly did not abandon circular dials in later receivers such as the SX-117 and SX-122. I have worked on an SX-122 and it is a fine performing radio. Hammarlund, of course, paid no attention to these cosmetic changes, and stuck with circular dials all the way through to their HQ-180 series.?
As a teen-aged ham in the late 1950's I would have given anything to own one of these radios. All I could afford was an S-38B with a BC-453 as a Q-5er, and I had fun and learned a lot.?
73,
Scott
N6CIC
|
SX 100 and 48 R Speaker and xtrasfor Sale
I have a very nice SX100 and R48 speaker for sale. The SX 100 has been recapped and aligned and good working condition. All of the knobs and functions work well. The speaker has one small scratch on the top and is in working condition. I have some extra tubes and a reprint of the manual to throw in as well. I can send interested parties some pictures. Due to the age of the equipment, it is sold as is. I will not split up the rig and the speaker. I will not ship the radio, but I live in PA zip code 18202, and I can meet you within an hour's drive or so.? I am asking $ 375 or BO. I will be at the RF Hill Flea market on Sunday if you wish to take delivery there. Cash or PayPal (Friends and Family) only.?
Regards
Tim KD2SC
|
Re: Was SX-110 History, Now S-120
Hmmm.? I got a S-120 for Christmas when I was about 12 (1963?).? I put up a 120 ft wire from the top of the house up to the peak of the barn.? Worked good.? Spent many nights listening to Clyde Clifford on?the "Beeker Street Theatre" radio program on KAAY in
Little Rock Arkansas.? Great memories.? I have several S-120 s in the bone pile.? It might be fun to use some JFET transistors to convert one from hollow state to solid state....? Another project for the queue.
Best Regards
Jim Zellmer,? ?KA0VSL
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Bob thanks for your quick reply
From my recollection , I generally agree with this ?comment, and all but the one small point in the previous comment. ??
As the topic has morphed a bit, it ?seems to me, Transistors were a great fad, and very good for portable BCB/AM use, but? were lacking for some time in power , frequency and
audio “fidelity”.
So one would expect communication receivers to lag behind table radios in use of transistors. The transistor was not taken seriously by many of us for some time.
?
As to a slightly different point, the S-120 was a tube receiver [presumably made in USA], but the S-120A version was all solid state, and made in Japan.. according to Dachis.
I don’t think I have a transistorized Halli ; I wonder if the “chassis” on early transistor units ?was partly circuit board.
?
Regarding some of the comments re the sx-101 styling, seems to me “my” S-47 was the first slide rule dial used by Hallicrafters.
When it comes to style ,the SX-115 seems very unique.
So many aspects of these radios to think about. ???
Don VA3DRL
?
?
Don - you are correct. First transistor was invented by Shockley, et all at Bell Labs, NJ,? in 1947. My intention was to convey that the dissemination/utlization of transistors? into
consumer products (eg. comm. receivers) did not really occur significantly until the mid-late 50's. Hallicrafters and the other major US receiver manufactuers? were still relying primarily on hollow state design but eventually began developing solid state
circuits for use in their receivers starting around this time, into the 60s/70s..?
?
?
|
Don - sorry, but I don't know the answer to that question without checking the detailed specs. However, if I had my choice of solid state receivers of that era (mid 60's - 70's) , I'd pick the Drake R7 over the HRO-500. I never owned either one of them but Drake put out some excellent solid state receivers? at that time.?
Bob K3AC
In a message dated 10/13/2022 10:28:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, drootofallevil@... writes:
?
Bob: ?Interesting comments ?
?Do you or anyone have any comments on which all SS receiver was the first to match or beat tube receivers for sensitivity , intermod, audio quality etc.? ignoring price? ?I expect there might be many answers ,
Where would the HRO-500 sit? , but it was also synthesized so ??
Don ?VA3DRL
?
?
It would seem Hallicrafters was slow in adopting solid state design for their higher end communications receivers, up to and including the SX-133 radio. They did, as you pointed out, make a SS version of the S-120 (S-120A) but this was actually made for them by a Japanese manufacturer (Trio?). The earliest, all SS communications receiver I know of is the Hammarlund HQ-215, which used Collins mechanical filters. It was very expensive and don't think it sold well as a result. I had one briefly, but wasn't too impressed with it compared to more modern receivers. Drake hung in there through the early 80's and made several all SS receivers (eg. R7, SW-4/8 line, etc) which were excellent albeit expensive. All the US comm. receiver manufacturers folded up their tents not long after that but it would have been interesting if they had hung in there and developed more all SS communications models. Sadly, we'll never know what could have been.
======trimmed
_,_
|
Bob: ?Interesting comments ? ?Do you or anyone have any comments on which all SS receiver was the first to match or beat tube receivers for sensitivity , intermod, audio quality etc.? ignoring price? ?I expect there might be many answers , Where would the HRO-500 sit? , but it was also synthesized so ?? Don ?VA3DRL ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Robert Needleman via groups.io
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2022 6:39 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [HallicraftersRadios] SX-110 History? It would seem Hallicrafters was slow in adopting solid state design for their higher end communications receivers, up to and including the SX-133 radio. They did, as you pointed out, make a SS version of the S-120 (S-120A) but this was actually made for them by a Japanese manufacturer (Trio?). The earliest, all SS communications receiver I know of is the Hammarlund HQ-215, which used Collins mechanical filters. It was very expensive and don't think it sold well as a result. I had one briefly, but wasn't too impressed with it compared to more modern receivers. Drake hung in there through the early 80's and made several all SS receivers (eg. R7, SW-4/8 line, etc) which were excellent albeit expensive. All the US comm. receiver manufacturers folded up their tents not long after that but it would have been interesting if they had hung in there and developed more all SS communications models. Sadly, we'll never know what could have been. ======trimmed
_,_
|
I completely forgot about the 'uber' SS receiver made by National in the mid-60's, the outrageously expensive, and complex HRO-500. Never owned one of them but that was probably Nationals' 'last gasp' at producing a high end all solid-state communications receiver, carrying the venerable "HRO" moniker of all their famous HRO tube receivers. Not sure how many of those were sold, but it probably required a few months pay to afford the price tag!
?
Bob K3AC
In a message dated 10/13/2022 6:38:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, k3ac@... writes:
?
Don,
?
It would seem Hallicrafters was slow in adopting solid state design for their higher end communications receivers, up to and including the SX-133 radio. They did, as you pointed out, make a SS version of the S-120 (S-120A) but this was actually made for them by a Japanese manufacturer (Trio?). The earliest, all SS communications receiver I know of is the Hammarlund HQ-215, which used Collins mechanical filters. It was very expensive and don't think it sold well as a result. I had one briefly, but wasn't too impressed with it compared to more modern receivers. Drake hung in there through the early 80's and made several all SS receivers (eg. R7, SW-4/8 line, etc) which were excellent albeit expensive. All the US comm. receiver manufacturers folded up their tents not long after that but it would have been interesting if they had hung in there and developed more all SS communications models. Sadly, we'll never know what could have been.
?
Bob K3AC
In a message dated 10/13/2022 5:53:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, drootofallevil@... writes:
?
Bob thanks for your quick reply
From my recollection , I generally agree with this ?comment, and all but the one small point in the previous comment. ??
As the topic has morphed a bit, it ?seems to me, Transistors were a great fad, and very good for portable BCB/AM use, but? were lacking for some time in power , frequency and audio “fidelity”.
So one would expect communication receivers to lag behind table radios in use of transistors. The transistor was not taken seriously by many of us for some time.
?
As to a slightly different point, the S-120 was a tube receiver [presumably made in USA], but the S-120A version was all solid state, and made in Japan.. according to Dachis.
I don’t think I have a transistorized Halli ; I wonder if the “chassis” on early transistor units ?was partly circuit board.
?
Regarding some of the comments re the sx-101 styling, seems to me “my” S-47 was the first slide rule dial used by Hallicrafters.
When it comes to style ,the SX-115 seems very unique.
So many aspects of these radios to think about. ???
Don VA3DRL
?
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Robert Needleman via groups.io
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2022 4:24 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [HallicraftersRadios] SX-110 History
?
Don - you are correct. First transistor was invented by Shockley, et all at Bell Labs, NJ,? in 1947. My intention was to convey that the dissemination/utlization of transistors? into consumer products (eg. comm. receivers) did not really occur significantly until the mid-late 50's. Hallicrafters and the other major US receiver manufactuers? were still relying primarily on hollow state design but eventually began developing solid state circuits for use in their receivers starting around this time, into the 60s/70s..?
? ?
?
|
And to put my oar in the water (ex-Navy CTR(2))......active duty
1967-1969.....never saw anything BUT a lot of R-390's , 23 (?) tubes
and all.? Made by a lot of American companies.? Gear-driven tuning.?
A real, true boatanchor.? Wish I had one now.?
Tom Latimer
On 10/13/2022 18:38, Robert Needleman
via groups.io wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Don,
?
It would seem
Hallicrafters was slow in adopting solid state design
for their higher end communications receivers, up to
and including the SX-133 radio. They did, as you
pointed out, make a SS version of the S-120 (S-120A)
but this was actually made for them by a Japanese
manufacturer (Trio?). The earliest, all SS
communications receiver I know of is the Hammarlund
HQ-215, which used Collins mechanical filters. It was
very expensive and don't think it sold well as a
result. I had one briefly, but wasn't too impressed
with it compared to more modern receivers. Drake hung
in there through the early 80's and made several all
SS receivers (eg. R7, SW-4/8 line, etc) which were
excellent albeit expensive. All the US comm. receiver
manufacturers folded up their tents not long after
that but it would have been interesting if they had
hung in there and developed more all SS communications
models. Sadly, we'll never know what could have been.
?
Bob K3AC
In a message dated 10/13/2022 5:53:59 PM Eastern Standard
Time, drootofallevil@...
writes:
?
Bob
thanks for your quick reply
From
my recollection , I generally agree with
this ?comment, and all but the one small
point in the previous comment. ??
As
the topic has morphed a bit, it ?seems to
me, Transistors were a great fad, and very
good for portable BCB/AM use, but? were
lacking for some time in power , frequency
and audio “fidelity”.
So
one would expect communication receivers to
lag behind table radios in use of
transistors. The transistor was not taken
seriously by many of us for some time.
?
As
to a slightly different point, the S-120 was
a tube receiver [presumably made in USA],
but the S-120A version was all solid state,
and made in Japan.. according to Dachis.
I
don’t think I have a transistorized Halli ;
I wonder if the “chassis” on early
transistor units ?was partly circuit board.
?
Regarding
some of the comments re the sx-101 styling,
seems to me “my” S-47 was the first slide
rule dial used by Hallicrafters.
When
it comes to style ,the SX-115 seems very
unique.
So
many aspects of these radios to think about.
???
Don
VA3DRL
?
?
Don - you are correct.
First transistor was invented by
Shockley, et all at Bell Labs,
NJ,? in 1947. My intention was to
convey that the
dissemination/utlization of
transistors? into consumer
products (eg. comm. receivers) did
not really occur significantly
until the mid-late 50's.
Hallicrafters and the other major
US receiver manufactuers? were
still relying primarily on hollow
state design but eventually began
developing solid state circuits
for use in their receivers
starting around this time, into
the 60s/70s..?
? ?
|
Don,
?
It would seem Hallicrafters was slow in adopting solid state design for their higher end communications receivers, up to and including the SX-133 radio. They did, as you pointed out, make a SS version of the S-120 (S-120A) but this was actually made for them by a Japanese manufacturer (Trio?). The earliest, all SS communications receiver I know of is the Hammarlund HQ-215, which used Collins mechanical filters. It was very expensive and don't think it sold well as a result. I had one briefly, but wasn't too impressed with it compared to more modern receivers. Drake hung in there through the early 80's and made several all SS receivers (eg. R7, SW-4/8 line, etc) which were excellent albeit expensive. All the US comm. receiver manufacturers folded up their tents not long after that but it would have been interesting if they had hung in there and developed more all SS communications models. Sadly, we'll never know what could have been.
?
Bob K3AC
In a message dated 10/13/2022 5:53:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, drootofallevil@... writes:
?
Bob thanks for your quick reply
From my recollection , I generally agree with this ?comment, and all but the one small point in the previous comment. ??
As the topic has morphed a bit, it ?seems to me, Transistors were a great fad, and very good for portable BCB/AM use, but? were lacking for some time in power , frequency and audio “fidelity”.
So one would expect communication receivers to lag behind table radios in use of transistors. The transistor was not taken seriously by many of us for some time.
?
As to a slightly different point, the S-120 was a tube receiver [presumably made in USA], but the S-120A version was all solid state, and made in Japan.. according to Dachis.
I don’t think I have a transistorized Halli ; I wonder if the “chassis” on early transistor units ?was partly circuit board.
?
Regarding some of the comments re the sx-101 styling, seems to me “my” S-47 was the first slide rule dial used by Hallicrafters.
When it comes to style ,the SX-115 seems very unique.
So many aspects of these radios to think about. ???
Don VA3DRL
?
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Robert Needleman via groups.io
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2022 4:24 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [HallicraftersRadios] SX-110 History
?
Don - you are correct. First transistor was invented by Shockley, et all at Bell Labs, NJ,? in 1947. My intention was to convey that the dissemination/utlization of transistors? into consumer products (eg. comm. receivers) did not really occur significantly until the mid-late 50's. Hallicrafters and the other major US receiver manufactuers? were still relying primarily on hollow state design but eventually began developing solid state circuits for use in their receivers starting around this time, into the 60s/70s..?
? ?
|
Bob thanks for your quick reply From my recollection , I generally agree with this ?comment, and all but the one small point in the previous comment. ?? As the topic has morphed a bit, it ?seems to me, Transistors were a great fad, and very good for portable BCB/AM use, but? were lacking for some time in power , frequency and audio “fidelity”. So one would expect communication receivers to lag behind table radios in use of transistors. The transistor was not taken seriously by many of us for some time. ? As to a slightly different point, the S-120 was a tube receiver [presumably made in USA], but the S-120A version was all solid state, and made in Japan.. according to Dachis. I don’t think I have a transistorized Halli ; I wonder if the “chassis” on early transistor units ?was partly circuit board. ? Regarding some of the comments re the sx-101 styling, seems to me “my” S-47 was the first slide rule dial used by Hallicrafters. When it comes to style ,the SX-115 seems very unique. So many aspects of these radios to think about. ??? Don VA3DRL ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Robert Needleman via groups.io
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2022 4:24 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [HallicraftersRadios] SX-110 History? Don - you are correct. First transistor was invented by Shockley, et all at Bell Labs, NJ,? in 1947. My intention was to convey that the dissemination/utlization of transistors? into consumer products (eg. comm. receivers) did not really occur significantly until the mid-late 50's. Hallicrafters and the other major US receiver manufactuers? were still relying primarily on hollow state design but eventually began developing solid state circuits for use in their receivers starting around this time, into the 60s/70s..?
? ?
|
My father gave my mother a birthday gift in 1957 of the Crosley "book" radio - one of the early consumer transistorized radios, that hit the market in 1954: It was actually a hybrid with 3 sub-minature tubes and 2 transistors. Required a big B (45V)? battery and several A batteries:
?
?
Bob K3AC
In a message dated 10/13/2022 4:31:22 PM Eastern Standard Time, teham2000@... writes:
When I was in grade school someone from NASA visited our school and told us about transistors.? They needed something small on the space crafts to save weight and space on the crafts.? This was in the early 60's.
?
Tony/N5JVA
|
Bob
waltcates
don Root