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
|
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
|
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 K3AC
In a message dated 10/13/2022 4:01:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, drootofallevil@... writes:
Bob? ,,,and group
I am caching up on my inbasket and had a look-only at previous comments
I had no intention of sticking my nose ?into these ?interesting ?comments on ¡°the SX-110 History¡± ?including ?ford vs. chevy, but then I ran into? ?¡°transistor had been invented in the mid-50's¡±¡ That is news to me.
I doubt that Bardeen, Bratain, and Shockley would have agreed on that.
Bardeen, and Bratain demonstrated transistor action on Christmas eve 1947? seems to be well documented, and official invention patents ?etc were not far after. ?By 1953 Raytheon was releasing the ck721 and 722 for a few bucks to experimenters ¡like me. And in 1954 the regency TR-1 was available.
?
Sorry ?for intruding on this point, as it is not really ¡°on? topic¡±, but ?this additional? comment ?regarding when the transistor was invented does not seem to be supported, by available resources, or my old books. ??
Don VA3DRL
?
?
Yes, the late 50's and early-mid 60's was what I would consider the 'golden age' of communications receiver manufacturing. The transistor had been invented in the mid-50's and was quickly being developed for use in consumer electronics, including SW and communications electronics. Just like in the automobile industry where you had the "Big 3" manufacturers (GM/Ford/Chrysler) competing with each other, coming out with new models every year or so, so you had the "Big 3" US receiver manufacturers competing for customers - Hallicrafters/ Hammarlund/ National. They tried to appeal to a wide group of consumers - casual SW listeners, experienced SWL's and hams. So you had the entry level SW radios like the S-120, then the more sophisticated comm receivers like the S-108, SX-110, SX-122, and the ham band only receivers designed exclusively for hams (SX-117, SX-115). It must have been a bee hive of activity at the old Hallicrafters factory in Chicago, with rows of ladies assembling and hard wiring/soldering all the various receiver models they were turning out. Things evidently starting going down hill in the late 60s - early 70's when the Asian manufacturers started competing, selling all solid-state receivers that were smaller, lighter, drift-free and often cheaper. Eventually all the US receiver manufacturers couldn't compete and went out of business in the 70's. A sad end to a long line of wonderful US-made communications receivers that were so well designed and? made and easily restored after 50 plus years that we still have many of them being used and enjoyed today.?
|
Bob? ,,,and group I am caching up on my inbasket and had a look-only at previous comments I had no intention of sticking my nose ?into these ?interesting ?comments on ¡°the SX-110 History¡± ?including ?ford vs. chevy, but then I ran into? ?¡°transistor had been invented in the mid-50's¡±¡ That is news to me. I doubt that Bardeen, Bratain, and Shockley would have agreed on that. Bardeen, and Bratain demonstrated transistor action on Christmas eve 1947? seems to be well documented, and official invention patents ?etc were not far after. ?By 1953 Raytheon was releasing the ck721 and 722 for a few bucks to experimenters ¡like me. And in 1954 the regency TR-1 was available. ? Sorry ?for intruding on this point, as it is not really ¡°on? topic¡±, but ?this additional? comment ?regarding when the transistor was invented does not seem to be supported, by available resources, or my old books. ?? Don VA3DRL ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Robert Needleman via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2022 11:44 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HallicraftersRadios] SX-110 History? Yes, the late 50's and early-mid 60's was what I would consider the 'golden age' of communications receiver manufacturing. The transistor had been invented in the mid-50's and was quickly being developed for use in consumer electronics, including SW and communications electronics. Just like in the automobile industry where you had the "Big 3" manufacturers (GM/Ford/Chrysler) competing with each other, coming out with new models every year or so, so you had the "Big 3" US receiver manufacturers competing for customers - Hallicrafters/ Hammarlund/ National. They tried to appeal to a wide group of consumers - casual SW listeners, experienced SWL's and hams. So you had the entry level SW radios like the S-120, then the more sophisticated comm receivers like the S-108, SX-110, SX-122, and the ham band only receivers designed exclusively for hams (SX-117, SX-115). It must have been a bee hive of activity at the old Hallicrafters factory in Chicago, with rows of ladies assembling and hard wiring/soldering all the various receiver models they were turning out. Things evidently starting going down hill in the late 60s - early 70's when the Asian manufacturers started competing, selling all solid-state receivers that were smaller, lighter, drift-free and often cheaper. Eventually all the US receiver manufacturers couldn't compete and went out of business in the 70's. A sad end to a long line of wonderful US-made communications receivers that were so well designed and? made and easily restored after 50 plus years that we still have many of them being used and enjoyed today.?
|
Amazon has several multi conductor microphone cables. Some are
described as "CB" items and others are listed as being
replacements for specific amateur radio transceivers. Maybe one of
those would work?
73, Mike Gorniak, NM7X
On 10/13/2022 1:17 PM, waltcates wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
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.
Hope you can find the mic cable source info.
73
?Walt
Cates,
WD0GOF
?
Your past has
no control over your future. Only your NOW can
impact your future.
Walt,
?
About
a year ago, I stumbled across a ¡°CB¡± site that sold me
some multi-conductor coiled cords¡ I¡¯ll see if I can find
the name, but think they¡¯re still out there.
?
Tom
¨C W?EAJ
?
PS
¨C I have a Village Radio (the size of an original ¡°walkie
Talkie¡±)¡ think it¡¯s an HA-2
|
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.
Hope you can find the mic cable source info.
73
?Walt Cates,
WD0GOF
?
Your past has no control over your future. Only your NOW can impact your future.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Walt,
?
About a year ago, I stumbled across a ¡°CB¡± site that sold me some multi-conductor coiled cords¡ I¡¯ll see if I can find the name, but think they¡¯re still out there.
?
Tom ¨C W?EAJ
?
PS ¨C I have a Village Radio (the size of an original ¡°walkie Talkie¡±)¡ think it¡¯s an HA-2
|
1955 Chevy weight= 3150 lbs
1959 Chevy 2D weight= 3500 lbs+
The 59's (with X frame and 2 piece driveshafts, etc) were the heavy ones!
Your in Chevrolet hot rod accuracy :-)
John (previous tri-5 chevy owner)
On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 10:40 PM chuckbell1952 via <chuckbell1952= [email protected]> wrote: I also agree. Absolutely love my SX101A.
On October 12, 2022, at 10:16 PM, Jeff AC0C <keepwalking188@...> wrote:
AGREE!!!!!!? Lovely RX
73/jeff/ac0c
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
On 10/12/2022 5:17 AM, William Barrett,
KW1B via wrote:
Yes to both!
? ...and to my eye the SX-101A is simply the Best-lookin'
ham radio receiver
ever built by anybody at anytime.? Compared to the
steam-punk and diesel-punk
art styles, the SX-101A ia a Bently or an upper Mercedes.
Always in style.
? ;-)
? 7
KW1B
Yes Ken!
The 1955 SX-99 styling is like a
1955 Chevy, rounded, heavy.
The 1959 SX-110 is like a 1959
Chevy, light and sharp and trim.
73,
Gary
WB6OGD
There was a change in industrial design standards during the
late 1950s. The solid massive designs of the Post war era
gave way to lighter designs that symbolized the Jet Age.
This change occurred in every industrial design, cars,
planes, radio, production machinery. The SX-110 and the
S-108 are beautiful examples of this change in Art Style.
Light, fast and sleek. The electronics were undergoing
a similar upgrade at this time.
73¡¯²õ
|
Walt, ? About a year ago, I stumbled across a ¡°CB¡± site that sold me some multi-conductor coiled cords¡ I¡¯ll see if I can find the name, but think they¡¯re still out there. ? Tom ¨C W?EAJ ? PS ¨C I have a Village Radio (the size of an original ¡°walkie Talkie¡±)¡ think it¡¯s an HA-2
|
Negative Steve kw4h. I have the SX-110,?Mark1A? ?Not SX-101 The SX-110 Mark1A manual is not available?on BAMA
The Mark 1A?is stamped on the chassis, it?has the same tube lineup,? but some circuits, values and locations have?changed. Anyone have a SX-100 Mark 1A manual source or copy to share? Be well, bob...w2ami x wn2ami 1962
|
The first of the series was the S 20R.? The S 40 was nearly identical electrically but restyled.? Probably the largest change of electronic design was the S 40B.? From the time of the S 20R, about 1938,? there were more expensive models with an S meter, crystal filter, separate speaker, calibrated band spread and other features.? Hallicrafters always? offered good value for money but seldom world class performance.? ?They tried to offer something in each price range. Just about all of the ham manufacturers tried to offer something new when sets became available again after ww-2 but few sets really were new.? For instance the HRO 50 was really much the same as earlier HROs but on a single chassis.? The Collins 75A1 was really the ground breaker but Hallicrafters got on the bandwagon pretty quickly with reasonably priced double-conversion receivers . ?The decade after the war was one of extreme competition especially with the entry of new companies in the market.? A look at the advertising of the period is enlightening.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-------- Original message -------- From: Michael OBrien <k0myw@...> Date: 10/12/22 8:59 PM (GMT-08:00) Subject: Re: [HallicraftersRadios] SX-110 History
The S-40 begat the S-85 which begat the S-108. Add an S-meter and crystal filter, and the S-85 became the SX-99 while the S-108 became the SX-110...
Bill Halligan was a master marketer. He refreshed and revised the outward appearance of his receivers every few years without major upgrades in internal circuitry, much as automobile manufacturers used to do with new models.
Mike K0MYW
On Wednesday, October 12, 2022, 10:44:05 PM CDT, Robert Needleman via groups.io <k3ac@...> wrote:
Steve,
? Yes, the late 50's and early-mid 60's was what I would consider the 'golden age' of communications receiver manufacturing. The transistor had been invented in the mid-50's and was quickly being developed for use in consumer electronics, including SW and communications electronics. Just like in the automobile industry where you had the "Big 3" manufacturers (GM/Ford/Chrysler) competing with each other, coming out with new models every year or so, so you had the "Big 3" US receiver manufacturers competing for customers - Hallicrafters/ Hammarlund/ National. They tried to appeal to a wide group of consumers - casual SW listeners, experienced SWL's and hams. So you had the entry level SW radios like the S-120, then the more sophisticated comm receivers like the S-108, SX-110, SX-122, and the ham band only receivers designed exclusively for hams (SX-117, SX-115). It must have been a bee hive of activity at the old Hallicrafters factory in Chicago, with rows of ladies assembling and hard wiring/soldering all the various receiver models they were turning out. Things evidently starting going down hill in the late 60s - early 70's when the Asian manufacturers started competing, selling all solid-state receivers that were smaller, lighter, drift-free and often cheaper. Eventually all the US receiver manufacturers couldn't compete and went out of business in the 70's. A sad end to a long line of wonderful US-made communications receivers that were so well designed and? made and easily restored after 50 plus years that we still have many of them being used and enjoyed today.? ? Bob K3AC In a message dated 10/12/2022 10:45:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, reedsteve@... writes: ? Bob, ? Thanks!? Looked that one up.? So -- it¡¯s interesting that in between the SX-99 and SX-110, Hallicrafters produced the S-108, which appears to be the S-110 without the crystal filter and S-meter.? Both appear to have been somewhat midrange in performance.? I¡¯m trying to discern what Hallicrafters was doing and why, but it may be impossible to figure out ¨C kind of like why Sony would have produced a stereo system in 1972 that included an auxiliary input, and another one that didn¡¯t a couple of years later. ? 73 ¨C Steve, KW4H ? Nope- they started making the S-108 in 1959 (big year for me- I started 1st grade)! Bob K3AC
On Oct 12, 2022, at 8:13 PM, KW4H via groups.io <reedsteve@...> wrote:
? Fascinating how the SX-110 and the SX-99 are basically the same radio in a different cabinet.? According to Osterman, the SX-99 was manufactured from 1955 ¨C 1958.? The SX-110 was 1960 ¨C 1963.? So there was a break of about two years, and then Hallicrafters revived the SX-99 in a different cabinet and look.? It appears that Hallicrafters didn¡¯t manufacture a single conversion superhet for those two years. ? 73 ¨C Steve, KW4H ? I still have my SX-99 from my early general-class days in 1959-60. The SX-110 is the same radio in a cheap cabinet (arguably easier to re-finish).? Circular or slide-rule is the Ford vs. Chevy argument... ? Both, however, are entirely usable on the bands and maintenance and/or re-cap, when required, is easy and straight-forward.? I also like the dual-conversion SX-111.? On 10/12/2022 6:01 PM RJ Mattson <wn2ami@...> wrote: I have a SX-110?which I acquired?used from Harrison Radio, NYC in the early 1960's. The top of the chassis is stamped:?Mark 1A That is all I could afford back then with a paper route salary. I just refurbished/aligned my old novice buddy. Amazingly, it is hot with 20uv range sensitivity. All the bumblebee caps were either shorted or high leakage. All the carbon resistors were found to be within 11% tolerance All the?tubes are Hallicrafters brand and test new, The original dial cords worked a month, frayed and now need to be replaced.?? The free SX-110 manuals found at many online sites differ from my Mark 1A.? The RF alignment was difficult because the alignment locations did not match the available manual pictorials. The Mark 1A has the same tube lineup but some circuit values and locations have?changed. Anyone have a SX-100 Mark 1A manual to share? bob...w2ami x wn2ami 1962
|
The first of the series was the S 20R.? The S 40 was nearly identical electrically but restyled.? Probably the largest change of electronic design was the S 40B.? From the time of the S 20R, about 1938,? there were more expensive models with an S meter, crystal filter, separate speaker, calibrated band spread and other features.? Hallicrafters always? offered good value for money but seldom world class performance.? ?They tried to offer something in each price range. Just about all of the ham manufacturers tried to offer something new when sets became available again after ww-2 but few sets really were new.? For instance the HRO 50 was really much the same as earlier HROs but on a single chassis.? The Collins 75A1 was really the ground breaker but Hallicrafters got on the bandwagon pretty quickly with reasonably priced double-conversion receivers . ?The decade after the war was one of extreme competition especially with the entry of new companies in the market.? A look at the advertising of the period is enlightening.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-------- Original message -------- From: Michael OBrien <k0myw@...> Date: 10/12/22 8:59 PM (GMT-08:00) Subject: Re: [HallicraftersRadios] SX-110 History
The S-40 begat the S-85 which begat the S-108. Add an S-meter and crystal filter, and the S-85 became the SX-99 while the S-108 became the SX-110...
Bill Halligan was a master marketer. He refreshed and revised the outward appearance of his receivers every few years without major upgrades in internal circuitry, much as automobile manufacturers used to do with new models.
Mike K0MYW
On Wednesday, October 12, 2022, 10:44:05 PM CDT, Robert Needleman via groups.io <k3ac@...> wrote:
Steve,
? Yes, the late 50's and early-mid 60's was what I would consider the 'golden age' of communications receiver manufacturing. The transistor had been invented in the mid-50's and was quickly being developed for use in consumer electronics, including SW and communications electronics. Just like in the automobile industry where you had the "Big 3" manufacturers (GM/Ford/Chrysler) competing with each other, coming out with new models every year or so, so you had the "Big 3" US receiver manufacturers competing for customers - Hallicrafters/ Hammarlund/ National. They tried to appeal to a wide group of consumers - casual SW listeners, experienced SWL's and hams. So you had the entry level SW radios like the S-120, then the more sophisticated comm receivers like the S-108, SX-110, SX-122, and the ham band only receivers designed exclusively for hams (SX-117, SX-115). It must have been a bee hive of activity at the old Hallicrafters factory in Chicago, with rows of ladies assembling and hard wiring/soldering all the various receiver models they were turning out. Things evidently starting going down hill in the late 60s - early 70's when the Asian manufacturers started competing, selling all solid-state receivers that were smaller, lighter, drift-free and often cheaper. Eventually all the US receiver manufacturers couldn't compete and went out of business in the 70's. A sad end to a long line of wonderful US-made communications receivers that were so well designed and? made and easily restored after 50 plus years that we still have many of them being used and enjoyed today.? ? Bob K3AC In a message dated 10/12/2022 10:45:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, reedsteve@... writes: ? Bob, ? Thanks!? Looked that one up.? So -- it¡¯s interesting that in between the SX-99 and SX-110, Hallicrafters produced the S-108, which appears to be the S-110 without the crystal filter and S-meter.? Both appear to have been somewhat midrange in performance.? I¡¯m trying to discern what Hallicrafters was doing and why, but it may be impossible to figure out ¨C kind of like why Sony would have produced a stereo system in 1972 that included an auxiliary input, and another one that didn¡¯t a couple of years later. ? 73 ¨C Steve, KW4H ? Nope- they started making the S-108 in 1959 (big year for me- I started 1st grade)! Bob K3AC
On Oct 12, 2022, at 8:13 PM, KW4H via groups.io <reedsteve@...> wrote:
? Fascinating how the SX-110 and the SX-99 are basically the same radio in a different cabinet.? According to Osterman, the SX-99 was manufactured from 1955 ¨C 1958.? The SX-110 was 1960 ¨C 1963.? So there was a break of about two years, and then Hallicrafters revived the SX-99 in a different cabinet and look.? It appears that Hallicrafters didn¡¯t manufacture a single conversion superhet for those two years. ? 73 ¨C Steve, KW4H ? I still have my SX-99 from my early general-class days in 1959-60. The SX-110 is the same radio in a cheap cabinet (arguably easier to re-finish).? Circular or slide-rule is the Ford vs. Chevy argument... ? Both, however, are entirely usable on the bands and maintenance and/or re-cap, when required, is easy and straight-forward.? I also like the dual-conversion SX-111.? On 10/12/2022 6:01 PM RJ Mattson <wn2ami@...> wrote: I have a SX-110?which I acquired?used from Harrison Radio, NYC in the early 1960's. The top of the chassis is stamped:?Mark 1A That is all I could afford back then with a paper route salary. I just refurbished/aligned my old novice buddy. Amazingly, it is hot with 20uv range sensitivity. All the bumblebee caps were either shorted or high leakage. All the carbon resistors were found to be within 11% tolerance All the?tubes are Hallicrafters brand and test new, The original dial cords worked a month, frayed and now need to be replaced.?? The free SX-110 manuals found at many online sites differ from my Mark 1A.? The RF alignment was difficult because the alignment locations did not match the available manual pictorials. The Mark 1A has the same tube lineup but some circuit values and locations have?changed. Anyone have a SX-100 Mark 1A manual to share? bob...w2ami x wn2ami 1962
|
Re: H-33B Center Pin Cooling Flag
Sounds like this is a conduction cooled pin to help over all cooling at the bottom of the tube.
--
73/Rick
WA6III
__________________________________
No critters were injured transmitting with Hallicrafters transmitters except
the ones that wandered into the final amp cage Bug-Motel!!
Bugs check-in, but they don't check-out!
|
The SX101 is an absolutely beautiful receiver!?
My SX101 Mk III? will be right next to my SX115 and will be used with an EF Johnson Viking Valiant on 160, 75 & 40!
Pictures to follow!
--
73/Rick
WA6III
__________________________________
No critters were injured transmitting with Hallicrafters transmitters except
the ones that wandered into the final amp cage Bug-Motel!!
Bugs check-in, but they don't check-out!
|
The S-40 begat the S-85 which begat the S-108. Add an S-meter and crystal filter, and the S-85 became the SX-99 while the S-108 became the SX-110...
Bill Halligan was a master marketer. He refreshed and revised the outward appearance of his receivers every few years without major upgrades in internal circuitry, much as automobile manufacturers used to do with new models.
Mike K0MYW
On Wednesday, October 12, 2022, 10:44:05 PM CDT, Robert Needleman via groups.io <k3ac@...> wrote:
Steve,
? Yes, the late 50's and early-mid 60's was what I would consider the 'golden age' of communications receiver manufacturing. The transistor had been invented in the mid-50's and was quickly being developed for use in consumer electronics, including SW and communications electronics. Just like in the automobile industry where you had the "Big 3" manufacturers (GM/Ford/Chrysler) competing with each other, coming out with new models every year or so, so you had the "Big 3" US receiver manufacturers competing for customers - Hallicrafters/ Hammarlund/ National. They tried to appeal to a wide group of consumers - casual SW listeners, experienced SWL's and hams. So you had the entry level SW radios like the S-120, then the more sophisticated comm receivers like the S-108, SX-110, SX-122, and the ham band only receivers designed exclusively for hams (SX-117, SX-115). It must have been a bee hive of activity at the old Hallicrafters factory in Chicago, with rows of ladies assembling and hard wiring/soldering all the various receiver models they were turning out. Things evidently starting going down hill in the late 60s - early 70's when the Asian manufacturers started competing, selling all solid-state receivers that were smaller, lighter, drift-free and often cheaper. Eventually all the US receiver manufacturers couldn't compete and went out of business in the 70's. A sad end to a long line of wonderful US-made communications receivers that were so well designed and? made and easily restored after 50 plus years that we still have many of them being used and enjoyed today.? ? Bob K3AC In a message dated 10/12/2022 10:45:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, reedsteve@... writes: ?
Bob, ? Thanks!? Looked that one up.? So -- it¡¯s interesting that in between the SX-99 and SX-110, Hallicrafters produced the S-108, which appears to be the S-110 without the crystal filter and S-meter.? Both appear to have been somewhat midrange in performance.? I¡¯m trying to discern what Hallicrafters was doing and why, but it may be impossible to figure out ¨C kind of like why Sony would have produced a stereo system in 1972 that included an auxiliary input, and another one that didn¡¯t a couple of years later. ? 73 ¨C Steve, KW4H ? Nope- they started making the S-108 in 1959 (big year for me- I started 1st grade)! Bob K3AC
On Oct 12, 2022, at 8:13 PM, KW4H via groups.io <reedsteve@...> wrote:
? Fascinating how the SX-110 and the SX-99 are basically the same radio in a different cabinet.? According to Osterman, the SX-99 was manufactured from 1955 ¨C 1958.? The SX-110 was 1960 ¨C 1963.? So there was a break of about two years, and then Hallicrafters revived the SX-99 in a different cabinet and look.? It appears that Hallicrafters didn¡¯t manufacture a single conversion superhet for those two years. ? 73 ¨C Steve, KW4H ? I still have my SX-99 from my early general-class days in 1959-60. The SX-110 is the same radio in a cheap cabinet (arguably easier to re-finish).? Circular or slide-rule is the Ford vs. Chevy argument... ? Both, however, are entirely usable on the bands and maintenance and/or re-cap, when required, is easy and straight-forward.? I also like the dual-conversion SX-111.? On 10/12/2022 6:01 PM RJ Mattson <wn2ami@...> wrote: I have a SX-110?which I acquired?used from Harrison Radio, NYC in the early 1960's. The top of the chassis is stamped:?Mark 1A That is all I could afford back then with a paper route salary. I just refurbished/aligned my old novice buddy. Amazingly, it is hot with 20uv range sensitivity. All the bumblebee caps were either shorted or high leakage. All the carbon resistors were found to be within 11% tolerance All the?tubes are Hallicrafters brand and test new, The original dial cords worked a month, frayed and now need to be replaced.?? The free SX-110 manuals found at many online sites differ from my Mark 1A.? The RF alignment was difficult because the alignment locations did not match the available manual pictorials. The Mark 1A has the same tube lineup but some circuit values and locations have?changed. Anyone have a SX-100 Mark 1A manual to share? bob...w2ami x wn2ami 1962
|
Steve,
?
Yes, the late 50's and early-mid 60's was what I would consider the 'golden age' of communications receiver manufacturing. The transistor had been invented in the mid-50's and was quickly being developed for use in consumer electronics, including SW and communications electronics. Just like in the automobile industry where you had the "Big 3" manufacturers (GM/Ford/Chrysler) competing with each other, coming out with new models every year or so, so you had the "Big 3" US receiver manufacturers competing for customers - Hallicrafters/ Hammarlund/ National. They tried to appeal to a wide group of consumers - casual SW listeners, experienced SWL's and hams. So you had the entry level SW radios like the S-120, then the more sophisticated comm receivers like the S-108, SX-110, SX-122, and the ham band only receivers designed exclusively for hams (SX-117, SX-115). It must have been a bee hive of activity at the old Hallicrafters factory in Chicago, with rows of ladies assembling and hard wiring/soldering all the various receiver models they were turning out. Things evidently starting going down hill in the late 60s - early 70's when the Asian manufacturers started competing, selling all solid-state receivers that were smaller, lighter, drift-free and often cheaper. Eventually all the US receiver manufacturers couldn't compete and went out of business in the 70's. A sad end to a long line of wonderful US-made communications receivers that were so well designed and? made and easily restored after 50 plus years that we still have many of them being used and enjoyed today.?
?
Bob K3AC
In a message dated 10/12/2022 10:45:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, reedsteve@... writes:
?
Bob,
?
Thanks!? Looked that one up.? So -- it¡¯s interesting that in between the SX-99 and SX-110, Hallicrafters produced the S-108, which appears to be the S-110 without the crystal filter and S-meter.? Both appear to have been somewhat midrange in performance.? I¡¯m trying to discern what Hallicrafters was doing and why, but it may be impossible to figure out ¨C kind of like why Sony would have produced a stereo system in 1972 that included an auxiliary input, and another one that didn¡¯t a couple of years later.
?
73 ¨C Steve, KW4H
?
Nope- they started making the S-108 in 1959 (big year for me- I started 1st grade)!
Bob K3AC
On Oct 12, 2022, at 8:13 PM, KW4H via groups.io <reedsteve@...> wrote:
?
Fascinating how the SX-110 and the SX-99 are basically the same radio in a different cabinet.? According to Osterman, the SX-99 was manufactured from 1955 ¨C 1958.? The SX-110 was 1960 ¨C 1963.? So there was a break of about two years, and then Hallicrafters revived the SX-99 in a different cabinet and look.? It appears that Hallicrafters didn¡¯t manufacture a single conversion superhet for those two years.
?
73 ¨C Steve, KW4H
?
I still have my SX-99 from my early general-class days in 1959-60. The SX-110 is the same radio in a cheap cabinet (arguably easier to re-finish).? Circular or slide-rule is the Ford vs. Chevy argument... ? Both, however, are entirely usable on the bands and maintenance and/or re-cap, when required, is easy and straight-forward.? I also like the dual-conversion SX-111.?
On 10/12/2022 6:01 PM RJ Mattson <wn2ami@...> wrote:
I have a SX-110?which I acquired?used from Harrison Radio, NYC in the early 1960's. The top of the chassis is stamped:?Mark 1A
That is all I could afford back then with a paper route salary.
I just refurbished/aligned my old novice buddy.
Amazingly, it is hot with 20uv range sensitivity.
All the bumblebee caps were either shorted or high leakage.
All the carbon resistors were found to be within 11% tolerance
All the?tubes are Hallicrafters brand and test new,
The original dial cords worked a month, frayed and now need to be replaced.??
The free SX-110 manuals found at many online sites differ from my Mark 1A.?
The RF alignment was difficult because the alignment locations did not match the available manual pictorials.
The Mark 1A has the same tube lineup but some circuit values and locations have?changed.
Anyone have a SX-100 Mark 1A manual to share?
bob...w2ami x wn2ami 1962
|
Bob, ? Thanks!? Looked that one up.? So -- it¡¯s interesting that in between the SX-99 and SX-110, Hallicrafters produced the S-108, which appears to be the S-110 without the crystal filter and S-meter.? Both appear to have been somewhat midrange in performance.? I¡¯m trying to discern what Hallicrafters was doing and why, but it may be impossible to figure out ¨C kind of like why Sony would have produced a stereo system in 1972 that included an auxiliary input, and another one that didn¡¯t a couple of years later. ? 73 ¨C Steve, KW4H ? Nope- they started making the S-108 in 1959 (big year for me- I started 1st grade)!
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Oct 12, 2022, at 8:13 PM, KW4H via groups.io <reedsteve@...> wrote:
? Fascinating how the SX-110 and the SX-99 are basically the same radio in a different cabinet.? According to Osterman, the SX-99 was manufactured from 1955 ¨C 1958.? The SX-110 was 1960 ¨C 1963.? So there was a break of about two years, and then Hallicrafters revived the SX-99 in a different cabinet and look.? It appears that Hallicrafters didn¡¯t manufacture a single conversion superhet for those two years. ? 73 ¨C Steve, KW4H ? I still have my SX-99 from my early general-class days in 1959-60. The SX-110 is the same radio in a cheap cabinet (arguably easier to re-finish).? Circular or slide-rule is the Ford vs. Chevy argument... ? Both, however, are entirely usable on the bands and maintenance and/or re-cap, when required, is easy and straight-forward.? I also like the dual-conversion SX-111.? On 10/12/2022 6:01 PM RJ Mattson <wn2ami@...> wrote: I have a SX-110?which I acquired?used from Harrison Radio, NYC in the early 1960's. The top of the chassis is stamped:?Mark 1A That is all I could afford back then with a paper route salary. I just refurbished/aligned my old novice buddy. Amazingly, it is hot with 20uv range sensitivity. All the bumblebee caps were either shorted or high leakage. All the carbon resistors were found to be within 11% tolerance All the?tubes are Hallicrafters brand and test new, The original dial cords worked a month, frayed and now need to be replaced.?? The free SX-110 manuals found at many online sites differ from my Mark 1A.? The RF alignment was difficult because the alignment locations did not match the available manual pictorials. The Mark 1A has the same tube lineup but some circuit values and locations have?changed. Anyone have a SX-100 Mark 1A manual to share? bob...w2ami x wn2ami 1962
|
don Root
waltcates
RJ Mattson
Rick W7IMM