Re: S-85 refurbish: I've got a problem during the RF alignment of bands 1 and 2 - trimcaps don't peak!
Maynard, the parts list shows them as one physical part. I thought I mentioned that some time ago, all going back to the S-40b or before. ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Maynard Wright via groups.io
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 11:44 AM
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!? The very nice revised schematic by dexterdxer@... dated
3/14/2019 shows a dashed line around the two halves of coil L3. I think
that if the original Hallicrafters schematic had included some
indication of coupling between the two halves of L3, the light might
have dawned earlier for me. I was thinking of them as two separate
coils due to the way they are shown in the Hallicrafters schematic. I
probably should have been clued in by the fact that they are both
included in the one label "L3."
73,
Maynard
W6PAP -- don??? va3drl
|
Re: S-85 refurbish: I've got a problem during the RF alignment of bands 1 and 2 - trimcaps don't peak!
So the same would be true for L6...
?
Also, I wonder if under some circumstances (~1/2w antenna) shorting out that 1k resistor would improve Band 1 performance.? Seems like it would be a voltage divider the way it's configured in the schematic.? Unless maybe it was intentional attenuation to stop broadcast band overload in urban areas?
|
Re: S-85 refurbish: I've got a problem during the RF alignment of bands 1 and 2 - trimcaps don't peak!
The very nice revised schematic by dexterdxer@... dated
3/14/2019 shows a dashed line around the two halves of coil L3. I think
that if the original Hallicrafters schematic had included some
indication of coupling between the two halves of L3, the light might
have dawned earlier for me. I was thinking of them as two separate
coils due to the way they are shown in the Hallicrafters schematic. I
probably should have been clued in by the fact that they are both
included in the one label "L3."
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 2/11/25 05:56, Maynard Wright via groups.io wrote: Hi, Don and Richard,
I agree that the S-40B and S-85 are identical with respect to the input
circuitry. The contrast I see is between those two and the S-40A, which
is entirely different.
Two issues I see:
1. The S-40A has four completely independent input circuits, each with
its own primary and secondary coils. In the S-40B/S-85, Bands 1 and 2
have no independent primary coils;
2. In the S-40B/S-85, Bands 1 and 2 appear to have a couple of reversed
connections in the schematic. But Don has suggested that coupling
between the two halves of L3 might replace the independent primaries.
In that case, my thoughts about the balanced inputs on Bands 3 and 4 and
unbalanced inputs (Antenna terminal A2 open) would still apply and be
consistent with measurements of my S-40B in the chart I sent earlier but
the schematic would not be in error.
If Don is correct in that conjecture, and I suspect that he is, doing
alignment in exactly the order specified might be important because
there would probably be at least some interaction between adjustments
for Bands 1 and 2.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
On 2/11/25 01:44, don Root wrote:
Richard, Maynard, Emanuele and anyone left.? agree Richard? ?,numbering
is beyond my mental gymnastic ability.
I am now convinced that for Band 1, L3 top couples the signal-in to L3
bottom ?where C4 is, and does the resonance, and the reverse for
band 2.
In band 1,2 positions the coils are not grounded.? --==? the tricky
¡°²Ô´Ç³Ù³¦³ó¡±
*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Richard Knoppow
via groups.io
*Sent:* Tuesday, February 11, 2025 1:58 AM
*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!
To Maynard and Don: I have gone over the schematics of the S-85 and
S-40B and after staring at them for quite a while now can't make sense
of it. I am missing something, what? The two are pretty much identical.
Both are confusing because, for one thing, the coils are not in the
order of the bands. I am just not seeing something or have become cross
eyed. I will keep at it because I just need to know.
The two low frequency bands appear not to use transformers or else
the primary is coupled from the other coils. Eventually, the penny will
drop and I will get it.
On 2/10/2025 4:43 PM, Maynard Wright via groups.io wrote:
Providing only two primary windings in the S-40B as opposed to 4 such
windings in the S-40A may have saved money, but it might also have made
the receiver more useful to at least some owners.
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL
SKCC 19998
|
Re: S-85 refurbish: I've got a problem during the RF alignment of bands 1 and 2 - trimcaps don't peak!
Hi, Don and Richard,
I agree that the S-40B and S-85 are identical with respect to the input
circuitry. The contrast I see is between those two and the S-40A, which
is entirely different.
Two issues I see:
1. The S-40A has four completely independent input circuits, each with
its own primary and secondary coils. In the S-40B/S-85, Bands 1 and 2
have no independent primary coils;
2. In the S-40B/S-85, Bands 1 and 2 appear to have a couple of reversed
connections in the schematic. But Don has suggested that coupling
between the two halves of L3 might replace the independent primaries.
In that case, my thoughts about the balanced inputs on Bands 3 and 4 and
unbalanced inputs (Antenna terminal A2 open) would still apply and be
consistent with measurements of my S-40B in the chart I sent earlier but
the schematic would not be in error.
If Don is correct in that conjecture, and I suspect that he is, doing
alignment in exactly the order specified might be important because
there would probably be at least some interaction between adjustments
for Bands 1 and 2.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 2/11/25 01:44, don Root wrote: Richard, Maynard, Emanuele and anyone left.? agree Richard? ?,numbering
is beyond my mental gymnastic ability.
I am now convinced that for Band 1, L3 top couples the signal-in to L3
bottom ?where C4 is, and does the resonance, and the reverse for band 2.
In band 1,2 positions the coils are not grounded.? --==? the tricky ¡°²Ô´Ç³Ù³¦³ó¡±
*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Richard Knoppow
via groups.io
*Sent:* Tuesday, February 11, 2025 1:58 AM
*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!
To Maynard and Don: I have gone over the schematics of the S-85 and
S-40B and after staring at them for quite a while now can't make sense
of it. I am missing something, what? The two are pretty much identical.
Both are confusing because, for one thing, the coils are not in the
order of the bands. I am just not seeing something or have become cross
eyed. I will keep at it because I just need to know.
The two low frequency bands appear not to use transformers or else
the primary is coupled from the other coils. Eventually, the penny will
drop and I will get it.
On 2/10/2025 4:43 PM, Maynard Wright via groups.io wrote:
Providing only two primary windings in the S-40B as opposed to 4 such
windings in the S-40A may have saved money, but it might also have made
the receiver more useful to at least some owners.
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL
SKCC 19998
|
Re: S-85 refurbish: I've got a problem during the RF alignment of bands 1 and 2 - trimcaps don't peak!
Richard, Maynard, Emanuele and anyone left.? agree Richard? ?,numbering is beyond my mental gymnastic ability. I am now convinced that for Band 1, L3 top couples the signal-in to L3 bottom ?where C4 is, and does the resonance, and the reverse for band 2. In band 1,2 positions the coils are not grounded.? --==? the tricky ¡°²Ô´Ç³Ù³¦³ó¡±
? ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Richard Knoppow via groups.io
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 1:58 AM
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!? To Maynard and Don: I have gone over the schematics of the S-85 and
S-40B and after staring at them for quite a while now can't make sense
of it. I am missing something, what? The two are pretty much identical.
Both are confusing because, for one thing, the coils are not in the
order of the bands. I am just not seeing something or have become cross
eyed. I will keep at it because I just need to know.
The two low frequency bands appear not to use transformers or else
the primary is coupled from the other coils. Eventually, the penny will
drop and I will get it.
On 2/10/2025 4:43 PM, Maynard Wright via groups.io wrote: Providing only two primary windings in the S-40B as opposed to 4 such
windings in the S-40A may have saved money, but it might also have made
the receiver more useful to at least some owners.
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL
SKCC 19998
-- don??? va3drl
|
Re: S-85 refurbish: I've got a problem during the RF alignment of bands 1 and 2 - trimcaps don't peak!
To Maynard and Don: I have gone over the schematics of the S-85 and
S-40B and after staring at them for quite a while now can't make sense
of it. I am missing something, what? The two are pretty much identical.
Both are confusing because, for one thing, the coils are not in the
order of the bands. I am just not seeing something or have become cross
eyed. I will keep at it because I just need to know.
The two low frequency bands appear not to use transformers or else
the primary is coupled from the other coils. Eventually, the penny will
drop and I will get it.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 2/10/2025 4:43 PM, Maynard Wright via groups.io wrote: Providing only two primary windings in the S-40B as opposed to 4 such
windings in the S-40A may have saved money, but it might also have made
the receiver more useful to at least some owners.
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL
SKCC 19998
|
Re: S-85 refurbish: I've got a problem during the RF alignment of bands 1 and 2 - trimcaps don't peak!
Providing only two primary windings in the S-40B as opposed to 4 such
windings in the S-40A may have saved money, but it might also have made
the receiver more useful to at least some owners.
Whatever the input impedance of each of the four transformers is in the
S-40A, they seem to be intended to match a relatively low impedance
transmission line of a few hundred ohms or less. For frequencies above
around 5 MHz, that would mean cutting a doublet to one half wave in
length and using open wire line or coax to bring the signal to the
S-40A. For frequencies lower than 5 MHz, though, many folks will not
have room for a halfwave antenna and they may elect to use a shorter
wire with the unbalanced input option.
In the S-40A, though, the unbalanced option, a feed to terminal A1 with
terminal A2 connected using the link to terminal G, will still expect a
low impedance "source," the transmission line or short antenna which may
actually have a relatively high impedance. There is no provision for
feeding the line to a higher impedance point in the receiver.
In the S-40B, the two higher frequency bands operate as in the S-40A but
the two lower frequency bands have no primary windings and antenna
terminal A1 is connected directly to the tuned circuit in each case, a
higher impedance point that would have been the secondary of the
transformer in the S-40A. In addition, a 1000 ohm resistor is added in
series for Band 1. This will, maybe, better serve folks who will be
using shorter antennas at the lower frequencies.
This may not matter as matching impedances in receivers like this is
probably not of much importance, but I wish that the S-40B manual had
pointed out that terminal A2 is open when the two lower frequency bands
are used.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 2/10/25 14:34, don Root wrote: Richard, how do you define ¡°performed¡±? More than anything, the front
end needs to remove images; if it doesn¡¯t do that, does it really
perform ?well? The IF cant remove images.
As you know the single conversion is not bad? at 40 meters but up at 10m
it¡¯s really tough to rid the images. You might say, it is a compromise;
but whatever, that¡¯s what ¡±you¡± bought.
*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Richard Knoppow
via groups.io
*Sent:* Monday, February 10, 2025 4:45 PM
*To:* [email protected]; 9166221613@...
*Subject:* Re: [HallicraftersRadios] S-85 refurbish: I've got a problem
during the RF alignment of bands 1 and 2 - trimcaps don't peak!
There are many changes from the S-40A to S-40B and later versions.
Its obvious that cost cutting had something to do with it but I think
the B had more modern circuits in several places.
I think it was found that the simpler circuits in the B and S-85
performed as well or better than the earlier ones.
On 2/10/2025 1:41 PM, Maynard Wright via groups.io wrote:
Yes, it is balanced on Bands 3 and 4 above 5.3 MHz. But the two coils
for the lower bands have no primary windings and terminal A1 connects to
the top of the coil for either Band 1 or 2. When the switch S1A
connects to either 1 or 2, the two primary windings for 3 and 4, as well
as terminal A2, are left floating. My measurements of my S-40B confirm
this.
Note that this is only for the S-40B and S-85 and is completely
different from the S-40A.
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL
SKCC 19998
--
don??? va3drl
|
Re: S-85 refurbish: I've got a problem during the RF alignment of bands 1 and 2 - trimcaps don't peak!
Richard, how do you define ¡°performed¡±? More than anything, the front end needs to remove images; if it doesn¡¯t do that, does it really perform ?well? The IF cant remove images. As you know the single conversion is not bad? at 40 meters but up at 10m it¡¯s really tough to rid the images. You might say, it is a compromise; but whatever, that¡¯s what ¡±you¡± bought. ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Richard Knoppow via groups.io
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2025 4:45 PM
To: [email protected]; 9166221613@...
Subject: Re: [HallicraftersRadios] S-85 refurbish: I've got a problem during the RF alignment of bands 1 and 2 - trimcaps don't peak!? There are many changes from the S-40A to S-40B and later versions.
Its obvious that cost cutting had something to do with it but I think
the B had more modern circuits in several places.
I think it was found that the simpler circuits in the B and S-85
performed as well or better than the earlier ones.
On 2/10/2025 1:41 PM, Maynard Wright via groups.io wrote: Yes, it is balanced on Bands 3 and 4 above 5.3 MHz. But the two coils
for the lower bands have no primary windings and terminal A1 connects to
the top of the coil for either Band 1 or 2. When the switch S1A
connects to either 1 or 2, the two primary windings for 3 and 4, as well
as terminal A2, are left floating. My measurements of my S-40B confirm
this.
Note that this is only for the S-40B and S-85 and is completely
different from the S-40A.
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL
SKCC 19998 ?
-- don??? va3drl
|
Re: S-85 refurbish: I've got a problem during the RF alignment of bands 1 and 2 - trimcaps don't peak!
Hi Richard? this topic began with an S-85, and has wandered off with good reason to its predecessors ?as well as the S-99. Maynard mentioned the 40A and 40B? ?so I don¡¯t know what ¡±it¡± ?means. From what I have seen ON THE DRAWINGS, I tend to agree with Maynard , but I have not looked at the 40A. What I will instead say L1, and L2 ?[coils??] seem to be transformers? and the primaries are isolated from ground unless the A2 is link is ?closed.. to ground, so they can be run either Balanced or single ended. As far as I can see the so called L3 coils [not transformers] for band 1 and 2 are FIXED connected to ground, with no possibility of floating, so can never be run as ¡°balanced¡± , but the 40A may well be the exception. Looking at the ongoing variations as models changed, I will speculate that Halli had problems ?getting both RF tanks to track with the LO. ?Likely the first {RF} tuning tank gets swung around by the HOO-NOSE-WHAT antenna impedance. ??The S-99 has an antenna trimmer to help tune. I am still stuck on how Band 1,2 signals get thru the S1 front and back wafers; but maybe the L3 coils have a lot of mutual inductance, and something tricky is going on. I wonder how physically close those coils really are to each other? ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Richard Knoppow via groups.io
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2025 3:35 PM
To: [email protected]; 9166221613@...
Subject: Re: [HallicraftersRadios] S-85 refurbish: I've got a problem during the RF alignment of bands 1 and 2 - trimcaps don't peak!? It is a balanced imput. Redraw the input circuits to show the actual
wiring without the switch.
On 2/10/2025 11:26 AM, Maynard Wright via groups.io wrote: It would be difficult to rewire the S-40B to allow balanced input on
Bands 1 and 2. The S-40A uses transformers with primary and secondary
windings and resonance of the secondaries on all four bands. The S-40B
does that same thing for Bands 3 and 4 but connects antenna terminal A1
directly to the "hot" end of each resonant coil for Bands 1 and 2, with
a series 1000 ohm resistor between A1 and the coil for Band 1. So there
are no primary windings for Bands 1 and 2.
If someone really wants a balanced input below 5.3 MHz with an S-40B or
S-85, it might be useful to wind a 1:1 input transformer to place
between the receiver and the transmission line.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP --
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL
SKCC 19998 -- don??? va3drl
|
Re: S-85 refurbish: I've got a problem during the RF alignment of bands 1 and 2 - trimcaps don't peak!
There are many changes from the S-40A to S-40B and later versions.
Its obvious that cost cutting had something to do with it but I think
the B had more modern circuits in several places.
I think it was found that the simpler circuits in the B and S-85
performed as well or better than the earlier ones.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 2/10/2025 1:41 PM, Maynard Wright via groups.io wrote: Yes, it is balanced on Bands 3 and 4 above 5.3 MHz. But the two coils
for the lower bands have no primary windings and terminal A1 connects to
the top of the coil for either Band 1 or 2. When the switch S1A
connects to either 1 or 2, the two primary windings for 3 and 4, as well
as terminal A2, are left floating. My measurements of my S-40B confirm
this.
Note that this is only for the S-40B and S-85 and is completely
different from the S-40A.
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL
SKCC 19998
|
Re: S-85 refurbish: I've got a problem during the RF alignment of bands 1 and 2 - trimcaps don't peak!
Yes, it is balanced on Bands 3 and 4 above 5.3 MHz. But the two coils
for the lower bands have no primary windings and terminal A1 connects to
the top of the coil for either Band 1 or 2. When the switch S1A
connects to either 1 or 2, the two primary windings for 3 and 4, as well
as terminal A2, are left floating. My measurements of my S-40B confirm
this.
Note that this is only for the S-40B and S-85 and is completely
different from the S-40A.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 2/10/25 12:34, Richard Knoppow via groups.io wrote: It is a balanced imput. Redraw the input circuits to show the actual
wiring without the switch.
On 2/10/2025 11:26 AM, Maynard Wright via groups.io wrote:
It would be difficult to rewire the S-40B to allow balanced input on
Bands 1 and 2. The S-40A uses transformers with primary and secondary
windings and resonance of the secondaries on all four bands. The S-40B
does that same thing for Bands 3 and 4 but connects antenna terminal A1
directly to the "hot" end of each resonant coil for Bands 1 and 2, with
a series 1000 ohm resistor between A1 and the coil for Band 1. So there
are no primary windings for Bands 1 and 2.
If someone really wants a balanced input below 5.3 MHz with an S-40B or
S-85, it might be useful to wind a 1:1 input transformer to place
between the receiver and the transmission line.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL
SKCC 19998
|
Re: S-85 refurbish: I've got a problem during the RF alignment of bands 1 and 2 - trimcaps don't peak!
I have an S-108 in my restoration queue and I noticed that the schematic is exactly the same as the S-85! Maybe there is a small difference somewhere I missed but it's not obvious.? That "wrong" Band 1/Band 2 wiring is still present, making me think maybe it's not actually a mistake.? I have not opened up the S-108 yet but when I do I will check the wiring.? As far as I know this is a stock unit.
|
Re: S-85 refurbish: I've got a problem during the RF alignment of bands 1 and 2 - trimcaps don't peak!
It is a balanced imput. Redraw the input circuits to show the actual
wiring without the switch.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 2/10/2025 11:26 AM, Maynard Wright via groups.io wrote: It would be difficult to rewire the S-40B to allow balanced input on
Bands 1 and 2. The S-40A uses transformers with primary and secondary
windings and resonance of the secondaries on all four bands. The S-40B
does that same thing for Bands 3 and 4 but connects antenna terminal A1
directly to the "hot" end of each resonant coil for Bands 1 and 2, with
a series 1000 ohm resistor between A1 and the coil for Band 1. So there
are no primary windings for Bands 1 and 2.
If someone really wants a balanced input below 5.3 MHz with an S-40B or
S-85, it might be useful to wind a 1:1 input transformer to place
between the receiver and the transmission line.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL
SKCC 19998
|
Re: S-85 refurbish: I've got a problem during the RF alignment of bands 1 and 2 - trimcaps don't peak!
I think the S-40B and S-85 are constructed so that the link from
the antenna terminals couples to the two highest bands as well as the
low bands. Redraw the circuit to see how this is done. I find this in a
number of receivers where I think it resulted in lowered manufacturing
cost. The coupling to the high bands is really direct rather than a
transformer.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 2/10/2025 5:43 AM, Maynard Wright via groups.io wrote: Hi, Don,
I did check the S-40A schematic and it shows all the input coils wired
so that on all bands they can function as balanced input circuits unlike
the S-40B and S-85 that leave terminal A2 open on Bands 1 and 2.
Now, is the receiver really wired that way or is the schematic wrong?
Later today (or tomorrow) I'll turn my S-40B around and measure terminal
A2 (DC continuity to A1 and G) with the bandswitch in all 4 positions.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL
SKCC 19998
|
Re: S-85 refurbish: I've got a problem during the RF alignment of bands 1 and 2 - trimcaps don't peak!
It would be difficult to rewire the S-40B to allow balanced input on
Bands 1 and 2. The S-40A uses transformers with primary and secondary
windings and resonance of the secondaries on all four bands. The S-40B
does that same thing for Bands 3 and 4 but connects antenna terminal A1
directly to the "hot" end of each resonant coil for Bands 1 and 2, with
a series 1000 ohm resistor between A1 and the coil for Band 1. So there
are no primary windings for Bands 1 and 2.
If someone really wants a balanced input below 5.3 MHz with an S-40B or
S-85, it might be useful to wind a 1:1 input transformer to place
between the receiver and the transmission line.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 2/10/25 10:13, Maynard Wright via groups.io wrote: Well! The email system seems to have stripped the tabs out of my chart,
but I hope it's readable.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
On 2/10/25 09:34, Maynard Wright via groups.io wrote:
Hi, Don,
I measured my S-40B's antenna terminals with an old analog VOM, so don't
take the measurements to be exceedingly precise, but I think that they
do tell the story:
Band A1-A2 A1-G A2-G
1 540-1680 kHz OPEN 1200 ohms OPEN
2 1680 kHz - 5.4 MHz OPEN 4 ohms OPEN
3 5.3 - 15.5 MHz 0.4 ohms OPEN OPEN
4 15.5 - 44 MHz 0.5 ohms OPEN OPEN
I conclude from this:
1. My S-40B (top of chassis stamped "AUG 3 1953"; back of chassis
stamped "70E937") does not have the input coils reversed as shown in the
schematic diagram;
2. My S-40B does feature the curious input wiring that would make a
balanced line input useless on bands 1 and 2.
Added to this, my S-40B is quite sensitive and usable on Bands 1 and 2.
I use it for CW QSOs on 80 meters (and 40 on Band 3). I have always
used it with the A2-G link in place and with an unbalanced input, so I
haven't previously noticed the curious input wiring.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
On 2/10/25 05:43, Maynard Wright via groups.io wrote:
Hi, Don,
I did check the S-40A schematic and it shows all the input coils wired
so that on all bands they can function as balanced input circuits unlike
the S-40B and S-85 that leave terminal A2 open on Bands 1 and 2.
Now, is the receiver really wired that way or is the schematic wrong?
Later today (or tomorrow) I'll turn my S-40B around and measure terminal
A2 (DC continuity to A1 and G) with the bandswitch in all 4 positions.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
On 2/9/25 23:57, don Root wrote:
Maynard
<>
<
<>
<
<>
<>
<>
<
<>
<
<>
<
<>
<>
<>
I did not get that far. My coils between the hears are smoked now, How
it works or doesn¡¯t gets more mysterious by the hour.
*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Maynard Wright
via
groups.io
*Sent:* Monday, February 10, 2025 12:04 AM
*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!
Hi, Don,
Oops! I lost track of who was doing what here.
I have only your diagram, not the S-85 manual, but note that when the
bandswitch is set to Band 1 or Band 2, antenna terminal A2 is not
connected to anything that provides continuity except for some possible
stray coupling. The manual for my S-40B shows the same circuit but with
Bands 1 and 2 as they should be.
The alignment instructions for the S-40B specify connection of A2 to G
using the supplied link, so they are ok. The operating instruction,
though, specify removal of the link when a doublet antenna with a
balanced feedline is used without pointing out that this would lead to a
connection of one side of the transmission line to A1 and the other
side, connected to A2, open.
If the S-85 manual is similar, it might be important to take into
account the disconnect of terminal A2 on Bands 1 and 2, depending on how
you are using the receiver or feeding it signals for adjustment.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
On 2/9/25 13:46, don Root wrote:
Emanuele, no need to reply to this, it is more for others that have an
S-85. I don¡¯t blame you for being fed-up with this radio, and giving up;
we all have had that feeling, ?but for the benefit of others we wonder
if ?yours is wired as per the schematic, or is it actually wired like I
suggested it should be. You seem to be very good at tackling all this
stuff, so if the wiring is apparently wrong at R65, you no doubt changed
it and tried it again, I would think but I saw no comment on that point.
I don¡¯t have an S-85, but, for any others with an S-85: does it have the
same alignment problem?, and poor sensitivity below 1Mc? ¡.and is it
wired as per the schematic? as I highlighted before? ?I don¡¯t believe
they BUILD them using a schematic, instead they use a more practical
physical wiring drawing; so it is hard to believe that they went out the
door wired, and working incorrectly, but I have seen worse cases when I
was in industrial electronics manufacturing, so impossible things do
happen, then I had to find and fix the impossible out in the field. The
big boss says ¡°ship it anyhow¡±, and QA succumbs.
Emanuele mentioned the S-99 is an exact copy in *some detailed
respects*, so I looked and found that the S-99 eliminates all capacitors
for the 1^st RF tanks and the slugs for bands 3,4.? ?It is interesting
that? they still list C3 with L3, but C3 itself has vanished..
???typical copy and paste draughting [drafting if you¡¯re in USA]
*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Emanuele Girlando
via groups.io
*Sent:* Sunday, February 9, 2025 12:56 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!
Guys,
one of the reasons I wants to give up with this one is the poor design
in the ANT RF circuitry.
I noticed the schematic diagram anomalies, both the 1&2 bands wiring
error and the fancy S1A-REAR layout, at the same time as Don did. I was
shocked and disappointed by that.
Days ago, while approaching the refurbishing project of my S-85, I did
read that the SX-99 is a S-85 plus IF-XTAL and S-Meter. So I download
the SX-99 schematic diagram to compare with but I discovered:
1.the 1&2 bands wiring error and the fancy S1A-REAR layout are? exactly
the same in SX-99 as in S-85; that was shocking and disappointing for
the second time (!!).
2.the ANT RF circuitry design has been completely reviewed in SX-99
eliminating TRIMCAPs and introducing a more useful antenna trimmer you
can adjust while switching between? bands and/or connecting different
antenna types input socket.
My conclusion was that the S-85 ANT circuit doesn't worth any additional
effort to be understood or further analyzed: The Hallicrafters it self
changed its design in successive projects..
Furthermore, IMHO, there is no point in having a ANT tuned circuit
inside the radio when, in everyday use, you would have to retune it
every time you change bands or the type of antenna connected to the
radio. Consequently? I got the conclusion that leaving it as "wide" as
possible sounds like a good choice.
In the hope of modifying my S-85 by reproducing the solution found in
the SX-99, I also checked if the coils part numbers were the same but,
unfortunately, they are not.
The only remaining test I want to do on this one is to align ANT and MIX
RF stages with the chassis inside the cabinet.
In other words I want to check if the service manual statement:
should be read as: "RF alignment *_MUST_* be made with chassis in the
cabinet. ...".
Thank you all once again.
--
Emanuele (IU1KNR).
<>
< <>
< <>
<> <>
< <>
< <>
< <>
<> <>
< <>
< <>
< <>
<> <>
< <>
<> <>
<> <>
<> <>
--
don??? va3drl
|
Re: S-85 refurbish: I've got a problem during the RF alignment of bands 1 and 2 - trimcaps don't peak!
Well! The email system seems to have stripped the tabs out of my chart,
but I hope it's readable.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 2/10/25 09:34, Maynard Wright via groups.io wrote: Hi, Don,
I measured my S-40B's antenna terminals with an old analog VOM, so don't
take the measurements to be exceedingly precise, but I think that they
do tell the story:
Band A1-A2 A1-G A2-G
1 540-1680 kHz OPEN 1200 ohms OPEN
2 1680 kHz - 5.4 MHz OPEN 4 ohms OPEN
3 5.3 - 15.5 MHz 0.4 ohms OPEN OPEN
4 15.5 - 44 MHz 0.5 ohms OPEN OPEN
I conclude from this:
1. My S-40B (top of chassis stamped "AUG 3 1953"; back of chassis
stamped "70E937") does not have the input coils reversed as shown in the
schematic diagram;
2. My S-40B does feature the curious input wiring that would make a
balanced line input useless on bands 1 and 2.
Added to this, my S-40B is quite sensitive and usable on Bands 1 and 2.
I use it for CW QSOs on 80 meters (and 40 on Band 3). I have always
used it with the A2-G link in place and with an unbalanced input, so I
haven't previously noticed the curious input wiring.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
On 2/10/25 05:43, Maynard Wright via groups.io wrote:
Hi, Don,
I did check the S-40A schematic and it shows all the input coils wired
so that on all bands they can function as balanced input circuits unlike
the S-40B and S-85 that leave terminal A2 open on Bands 1 and 2.
Now, is the receiver really wired that way or is the schematic wrong?
Later today (or tomorrow) I'll turn my S-40B around and measure terminal
A2 (DC continuity to A1 and G) with the bandswitch in all 4 positions.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
On 2/9/25 23:57, don Root wrote:
Maynard
<>
<
<>
<
<>
<>
<>
I did not get that far. My coils between the hears are smoked now, How
it works or doesn¡¯t gets more mysterious by the hour.
*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Maynard Wright
via
groups.io
*Sent:* Monday, February 10, 2025 12:04 AM
*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!
Hi, Don,
Oops! I lost track of who was doing what here.
I have only your diagram, not the S-85 manual, but note that when the
bandswitch is set to Band 1 or Band 2, antenna terminal A2 is not
connected to anything that provides continuity except for some possible
stray coupling. The manual for my S-40B shows the same circuit but with
Bands 1 and 2 as they should be.
The alignment instructions for the S-40B specify connection of A2 to G
using the supplied link, so they are ok. The operating instruction,
though, specify removal of the link when a doublet antenna with a
balanced feedline is used without pointing out that this would lead to a
connection of one side of the transmission line to A1 and the other
side, connected to A2, open.
If the S-85 manual is similar, it might be important to take into
account the disconnect of terminal A2 on Bands 1 and 2, depending on how
you are using the receiver or feeding it signals for adjustment.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
On 2/9/25 13:46, don Root wrote:
Emanuele, no need to reply to this, it is more for others that have an
S-85. I don¡¯t blame you for being fed-up with this radio, and giving up;
we all have had that feeling, ?but for the benefit of others we wonder
if ?yours is wired as per the schematic, or is it actually wired like I
suggested it should be. You seem to be very good at tackling all this
stuff, so if the wiring is apparently wrong at R65, you no doubt changed
it and tried it again, I would think but I saw no comment on that point.
I don¡¯t have an S-85, but, for any others with an S-85: does it have the
same alignment problem?, and poor sensitivity below 1Mc? ¡.and is it
wired as per the schematic? as I highlighted before? ?I don¡¯t believe
they BUILD them using a schematic, instead they use a more practical
physical wiring drawing; so it is hard to believe that they went out the
door wired, and working incorrectly, but I have seen worse cases when I
was in industrial electronics manufacturing, so impossible things do
happen, then I had to find and fix the impossible out in the field. The
big boss says ¡°ship it anyhow¡±, and QA succumbs.
Emanuele mentioned the S-99 is an exact copy in *some detailed
respects*, so I looked and found that the S-99 eliminates all capacitors
for the 1^st RF tanks and the slugs for bands 3,4.? ?It is interesting
that? they still list C3 with L3, but C3 itself has vanished..
???typical copy and paste draughting [drafting if you¡¯re in USA]
*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Emanuele Girlando
via groups.io
*Sent:* Sunday, February 9, 2025 12:56 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!
Guys,
one of the reasons I wants to give up with this one is the poor design
in the ANT RF circuitry.
I noticed the schematic diagram anomalies, both the 1&2 bands wiring
error and the fancy S1A-REAR layout, at the same time as Don did. I was
shocked and disappointed by that.
Days ago, while approaching the refurbishing project of my S-85, I did
read that the SX-99 is a S-85 plus IF-XTAL and S-Meter. So I download
the SX-99 schematic diagram to compare with but I discovered:
1.the 1&2 bands wiring error and the fancy S1A-REAR layout are? exactly
the same in SX-99 as in S-85; that was shocking and disappointing for
the second time (!!).
2.the ANT RF circuitry design has been completely reviewed in SX-99
eliminating TRIMCAPs and introducing a more useful antenna trimmer you
can adjust while switching between? bands and/or connecting different
antenna types input socket.
My conclusion was that the S-85 ANT circuit doesn't worth any additional
effort to be understood or further analyzed: The Hallicrafters it self
changed its design in successive projects..
Furthermore, IMHO, there is no point in having a ANT tuned circuit
inside the radio when, in everyday use, you would have to retune it
every time you change bands or the type of antenna connected to the
radio. Consequently? I got the conclusion that leaving it as "wide" as
possible sounds like a good choice.
In the hope of modifying my S-85 by reproducing the solution found in
the SX-99, I also checked if the coils part numbers were the same but,
unfortunately, they are not.
The only remaining test I want to do on this one is to align ANT and MIX
RF stages with the chassis inside the cabinet.
In other words I want to check if the service manual statement:
should be read as: "RF alignment *_MUST_* be made with chassis in the
cabinet. ...".
Thank you all once again.
--
Emanuele (IU1KNR).
<>
< <>
< <>
<> <>
< <>
< <>
< <>
<> <>
--
don??? va3drl
|
Re: S-85 refurbish: I've got a problem during the RF alignment of bands 1 and 2 - trimcaps don't peak!
Hi, Don,
I measured my S-40B's antenna terminals with an old analog VOM, so don't
take the measurements to be exceedingly precise, but I think that they
do tell the story:
Band A1-A2 A1-G A2-G
1 540-1680 kHz OPEN 1200 ohms OPEN
2 1680 kHz - 5.4 MHz OPEN 4 ohms OPEN
3 5.3 - 15.5 MHz 0.4 ohms OPEN OPEN
4 15.5 - 44 MHz 0.5 ohms OPEN OPEN
I conclude from this:
1. My S-40B (top of chassis stamped "AUG 3 1953"; back of chassis
stamped "70E937") does not have the input coils reversed as shown in the
schematic diagram;
2. My S-40B does feature the curious input wiring that would make a
balanced line input useless on bands 1 and 2.
Added to this, my S-40B is quite sensitive and usable on Bands 1 and 2.
I use it for CW QSOs on 80 meters (and 40 on Band 3). I have always
used it with the A2-G link in place and with an unbalanced input, so I
haven't previously noticed the curious input wiring.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 2/10/25 05:43, Maynard Wright via groups.io wrote: Hi, Don,
I did check the S-40A schematic and it shows all the input coils wired
so that on all bands they can function as balanced input circuits unlike
the S-40B and S-85 that leave terminal A2 open on Bands 1 and 2.
Now, is the receiver really wired that way or is the schematic wrong?
Later today (or tomorrow) I'll turn my S-40B around and measure terminal
A2 (DC continuity to A1 and G) with the bandswitch in all 4 positions.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
On 2/9/25 23:57, don Root wrote:
Maynard
<>
<
<>
I did not get that far. My coils between the hears are smoked now, How
it works or doesn¡¯t gets more mysterious by the hour.
*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Maynard Wright
via
groups.io
*Sent:* Monday, February 10, 2025 12:04 AM
*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!
Hi, Don,
Oops! I lost track of who was doing what here.
I have only your diagram, not the S-85 manual, but note that when the
bandswitch is set to Band 1 or Band 2, antenna terminal A2 is not
connected to anything that provides continuity except for some possible
stray coupling. The manual for my S-40B shows the same circuit but with
Bands 1 and 2 as they should be.
The alignment instructions for the S-40B specify connection of A2 to G
using the supplied link, so they are ok. The operating instruction,
though, specify removal of the link when a doublet antenna with a
balanced feedline is used without pointing out that this would lead to a
connection of one side of the transmission line to A1 and the other
side, connected to A2, open.
If the S-85 manual is similar, it might be important to take into
account the disconnect of terminal A2 on Bands 1 and 2, depending on how
you are using the receiver or feeding it signals for adjustment.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
On 2/9/25 13:46, don Root wrote:
Emanuele, no need to reply to this, it is more for others that have an
S-85. I don¡¯t blame you for being fed-up with this radio, and giving up;
we all have had that feeling, ?but for the benefit of others we wonder
if ?yours is wired as per the schematic, or is it actually wired like I
suggested it should be. You seem to be very good at tackling all this
stuff, so if the wiring is apparently wrong at R65, you no doubt changed
it and tried it again, I would think but I saw no comment on that point.
I don¡¯t have an S-85, but, for any others with an S-85: does it have the
same alignment problem?, and poor sensitivity below 1Mc? ¡.and is it
wired as per the schematic? as I highlighted before? ?I don¡¯t believe
they BUILD them using a schematic, instead they use a more practical
physical wiring drawing; so it is hard to believe that they went out the
door wired, and working incorrectly, but I have seen worse cases when I
was in industrial electronics manufacturing, so impossible things do
happen, then I had to find and fix the impossible out in the field. The
big boss says ¡°ship it anyhow¡±, and QA succumbs.
Emanuele mentioned the S-99 is an exact copy in *some detailed
respects*, so I looked and found that the S-99 eliminates all capacitors
for the 1^st RF tanks and the slugs for bands 3,4.? ?It is interesting
that? they still list C3 with L3, but C3 itself has vanished..
???typical copy and paste draughting [drafting if you¡¯re in USA]
*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Emanuele Girlando
via groups.io
*Sent:* Sunday, February 9, 2025 12:56 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!
Guys,
one of the reasons I wants to give up with this one is the poor design
in the ANT RF circuitry.
I noticed the schematic diagram anomalies, both the 1&2 bands wiring
error and the fancy S1A-REAR layout, at the same time as Don did. I was
shocked and disappointed by that.
Days ago, while approaching the refurbishing project of my S-85, I did
read that the SX-99 is a S-85 plus IF-XTAL and S-Meter. So I download
the SX-99 schematic diagram to compare with but I discovered:
1.the 1&2 bands wiring error and the fancy S1A-REAR layout are? exactly
the same in SX-99 as in S-85; that was shocking and disappointing for
the second time (!!).
2.the ANT RF circuitry design has been completely reviewed in SX-99
eliminating TRIMCAPs and introducing a more useful antenna trimmer you
can adjust while switching between? bands and/or connecting different
antenna types input socket.
My conclusion was that the S-85 ANT circuit doesn't worth any additional
effort to be understood or further analyzed: The Hallicrafters it self
changed its design in successive projects..
Furthermore, IMHO, there is no point in having a ANT tuned circuit
inside the radio when, in everyday use, you would have to retune it
every time you change bands or the type of antenna connected to the
radio. Consequently? I got the conclusion that leaving it as "wide" as
possible sounds like a good choice.
In the hope of modifying my S-85 by reproducing the solution found in
the SX-99, I also checked if the coils part numbers were the same but,
unfortunately, they are not.
The only remaining test I want to do on this one is to align ANT and MIX
RF stages with the chassis inside the cabinet.
In other words I want to check if the service manual statement:
should be read as: "RF alignment *_MUST_* be made with chassis in the
cabinet. ...".
Thank you all once again.
--
Emanuele (IU1KNR).
<>
< <>
< <>
<> <>
--
don??? va3drl
|
Re: S-85 refurbish: I've got a problem during the RF alignment of bands 1 and 2 - trimcaps don't peak!
Hi, Don,
I did check the S-40A schematic and it shows all the input coils wired
so that on all bands they can function as balanced input circuits unlike
the S-40B and S-85 that leave terminal A2 open on Bands 1 and 2.
Now, is the receiver really wired that way or is the schematic wrong?
Later today (or tomorrow) I'll turn my S-40B around and measure terminal
A2 (DC continuity to A1 and G) with the bandswitch in all 4 positions.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 2/9/25 23:57, don Root wrote: Maynard
<>
I did not get that far. My coils between the hears are smoked now, How
it works or doesn¡¯t gets more mysterious by the hour.
*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Maynard Wright via
groups.io
*Sent:* Monday, February 10, 2025 12:04 AM
*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!
Hi, Don,
Oops! I lost track of who was doing what here.
I have only your diagram, not the S-85 manual, but note that when the
bandswitch is set to Band 1 or Band 2, antenna terminal A2 is not
connected to anything that provides continuity except for some possible
stray coupling. The manual for my S-40B shows the same circuit but with
Bands 1 and 2 as they should be.
The alignment instructions for the S-40B specify connection of A2 to G
using the supplied link, so they are ok. The operating instruction,
though, specify removal of the link when a doublet antenna with a
balanced feedline is used without pointing out that this would lead to a
connection of one side of the transmission line to A1 and the other
side, connected to A2, open.
If the S-85 manual is similar, it might be important to take into
account the disconnect of terminal A2 on Bands 1 and 2, depending on how
you are using the receiver or feeding it signals for adjustment.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
On 2/9/25 13:46, don Root wrote:
Emanuele, no need to reply to this, it is more for others that have an
S-85. I don¡¯t blame you for being fed-up with this radio, and giving up;
we all have had that feeling, ?but for the benefit of others we wonder
if ?yours is wired as per the schematic, or is it actually wired like I
suggested it should be. You seem to be very good at tackling all this
stuff, so if the wiring is apparently wrong at R65, you no doubt changed
it and tried it again, I would think but I saw no comment on that point.
I don¡¯t have an S-85, but, for any others with an S-85: does it have the
same alignment problem?, and poor sensitivity below 1Mc? ¡.and is it
wired as per the schematic? as I highlighted before? ?I don¡¯t believe
they BUILD them using a schematic, instead they use a more practical
physical wiring drawing; so it is hard to believe that they went out the
door wired, and working incorrectly, but I have seen worse cases when I
was in industrial electronics manufacturing, so impossible things do
happen, then I had to find and fix the impossible out in the field. The
big boss says ¡°ship it anyhow¡±, and QA succumbs.
Emanuele mentioned the S-99 is an exact copy in *some detailed
respects*, so I looked and found that the S-99 eliminates all capacitors
for the 1^st RF tanks and the slugs for bands 3,4.? ?It is interesting
that? they still list C3 with L3, but C3 itself has vanished..
???typical copy and paste draughting [drafting if you¡¯re in USA]
*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Emanuele Girlando
via groups.io
*Sent:* Sunday, February 9, 2025 12:56 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!
Guys,
one of the reasons I wants to give up with this one is the poor design
in the ANT RF circuitry.
I noticed the schematic diagram anomalies, both the 1&2 bands wiring
error and the fancy S1A-REAR layout, at the same time as Don did. I was
shocked and disappointed by that.
Days ago, while approaching the refurbishing project of my S-85, I did
read that the SX-99 is a S-85 plus IF-XTAL and S-Meter. So I download
the SX-99 schematic diagram to compare with but I discovered:
1.the 1&2 bands wiring error and the fancy S1A-REAR layout are? exactly
the same in SX-99 as in S-85; that was shocking and disappointing for
the second time (!!).
2.the ANT RF circuitry design has been completely reviewed in SX-99
eliminating TRIMCAPs and introducing a more useful antenna trimmer you
can adjust while switching between? bands and/or connecting different
antenna types input socket.
My conclusion was that the S-85 ANT circuit doesn't worth any additional
effort to be understood or further analyzed: The Hallicrafters it self
changed its design in successive projects..
Furthermore, IMHO, there is no point in having a ANT tuned circuit
inside the radio when, in everyday use, you would have to retune it
every time you change bands or the type of antenna connected to the
radio. Consequently? I got the conclusion that leaving it as "wide" as
possible sounds like a good choice.
In the hope of modifying my S-85 by reproducing the solution found in
the SX-99, I also checked if the coils part numbers were the same but,
unfortunately, they are not.
The only remaining test I want to do on this one is to align ANT and MIX
RF stages with the chassis inside the cabinet.
In other words I want to check if the service manual statement:
should be read as: "RF alignment *_MUST_* be made with chassis in the
cabinet. ...".
Thank you all once again.
--
Emanuele (IU1KNR).
<>
< <>
--
don??? va3drl
|
Re: S-85 refurbish: I've got a problem during the RF alignment of bands 1 and 2 - trimcaps don't peak!
Maynard I did not get that far. My coils between the hears are smoked now, How it works or doesn¡¯t gets more mysterious by the hour. ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Maynard Wright via groups.io
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2025 12:04 AM
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!? Hi, Don,
Oops! I lost track of who was doing what here.
I have only your diagram, not the S-85 manual, but note that when the
bandswitch is set to Band 1 or Band 2, antenna terminal A2 is not
connected to anything that provides continuity except for some possible
stray coupling. The manual for my S-40B shows the same circuit but with
Bands 1 and 2 as they should be.
The alignment instructions for the S-40B specify connection of A2 to G
using the supplied link, so they are ok. The operating instruction,
though, specify removal of the link when a doublet antenna with a
balanced feedline is used without pointing out that this would lead to a
connection of one side of the transmission line to A1 and the other
side, connected to A2, open.
If the S-85 manual is similar, it might be important to take into
account the disconnect of terminal A2 on Bands 1 and 2, depending on how
you are using the receiver or feeding it signals for adjustment.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
On 2/9/25 13:46, don Root wrote: Emanuele, no need to reply to this, it is more for others that have an
S-85. I don¡¯t blame you for being fed-up with this radio, and giving up;
we all have had that feeling, ?but for the benefit of others we wonder
if ?yours is wired as per the schematic, or is it actually wired like I
suggested it should be. You seem to be very good at tackling all this
stuff, so if the wiring is apparently wrong at R65, you no doubt changed
it and tried it again, I would think but I saw no comment on that point.
I don¡¯t have an S-85, but, for any others with an S-85: does it have the
same alignment problem?, and poor sensitivity below 1Mc? ¡.and is it
wired as per the schematic? as I highlighted before? ?I don¡¯t believe
they BUILD them using a schematic, instead they use a more practical
physical wiring drawing; so it is hard to believe that they went out the
door wired, and working incorrectly, but I have seen worse cases when I
was in industrial electronics manufacturing, so impossible things do
happen, then I had to find and fix the impossible out in the field. The
big boss says ¡°ship it anyhow¡±, and QA succumbs.
Emanuele mentioned the S-99 is an exact copy in *some detailed
respects*, so I looked and found that the S-99 eliminates all capacitors
for the 1^st RF tanks and the slugs for bands 3,4.? ?It is interesting
that? they still list C3 with L3, but C3 itself has vanished..
???typical copy and paste draughting [drafting if you¡¯re in USA]
*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Emanuele Girlando
via groups.io
*Sent:* Sunday, February 9, 2025 12:56 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!
Guys,
one of the reasons I wants to give up with this one is the poor design
in the ANT RF circuitry.
I noticed the schematic diagram anomalies, both the 1&2 bands wiring
error and the fancy S1A-REAR layout, at the same time as Don did. I was
shocked and disappointed by that.
Days ago, while approaching the refurbishing project of my S-85, I did
read that the SX-99 is a S-85 plus IF-XTAL and S-Meter. So I download
the SX-99 schematic diagram to compare with but I discovered:
1.the 1&2 bands wiring error and the fancy S1A-REAR layout are? exactly
the same in SX-99 as in S-85; that was shocking and disappointing for
the second time (!!).
2.the ANT RF circuitry design has been completely reviewed in SX-99
eliminating TRIMCAPs and introducing a more useful antenna trimmer you
can adjust while switching between? bands and/or connecting different
antenna types input socket.
My conclusion was that the S-85 ANT circuit doesn't worth any additional
effort to be understood or further analyzed: The Hallicrafters it self
changed its design in successive projects..
Furthermore, IMHO, there is no point in having a ANT tuned circuit
inside the radio when, in everyday use, you would have to retune it
every time you change bands or the type of antenna connected to the
radio. Consequently? I got the conclusion that leaving it as "wide" as
possible sounds like a good choice.
In the hope of modifying my S-85 by reproducing the solution found in
the SX-99, I also checked if the coils part numbers were the same but,
unfortunately, they are not.
The only remaining test I want to do on this one is to align ANT and MIX
RF stages with the chassis inside the cabinet.
In other words I want to check if the service manual statement:
should be read as: "RF alignment *_MUST_* be made with chassis in the
cabinet. ...".
Thank you all once again.
--
Emanuele (IU1KNR).
<>
--
don??? va3drl
-- don??? va3drl
|
Re: S-85 refurbish: I've got a problem during the RF alignment of bands 1 and 2 - trimcaps don't peak!
Hi, Don,
Oops! I lost track of who was doing what here.
I have only your diagram, not the S-85 manual, but note that when the
bandswitch is set to Band 1 or Band 2, antenna terminal A2 is not
connected to anything that provides continuity except for some possible
stray coupling. The manual for my S-40B shows the same circuit but with
Bands 1 and 2 as they should be.
The alignment instructions for the S-40B specify connection of A2 to G
using the supplied link, so they are ok. The operating instruction,
though, specify removal of the link when a doublet antenna with a
balanced feedline is used without pointing out that this would lead to a
connection of one side of the transmission line to A1 and the other
side, connected to A2, open.
If the S-85 manual is similar, it might be important to take into
account the disconnect of terminal A2 on Bands 1 and 2, depending on how
you are using the receiver or feeding it signals for adjustment.
73,
Maynard
W6PAP
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 2/9/25 13:46, don Root wrote: Emanuele, no need to reply to this, it is more for others that have an
S-85. I don¡¯t blame you for being fed-up with this radio, and giving up;
we all have had that feeling, ?but for the benefit of others we wonder
if ?yours is wired as per the schematic, or is it actually wired like I
suggested it should be. You seem to be very good at tackling all this
stuff, so if the wiring is apparently wrong at R65, you no doubt changed
it and tried it again, I would think but I saw no comment on that point.
I don¡¯t have an S-85, but, for any others with an S-85: does it have the
same alignment problem?, and poor sensitivity below 1Mc? ¡.and is it
wired as per the schematic? as I highlighted before? ?I don¡¯t believe
they BUILD them using a schematic, instead they use a more practical
physical wiring drawing; so it is hard to believe that they went out the
door wired, and working incorrectly, but I have seen worse cases when I
was in industrial electronics manufacturing, so impossible things do
happen, then I had to find and fix the impossible out in the field. The
big boss says ¡°ship it anyhow¡±, and QA succumbs.
Emanuele mentioned the S-99 is an exact copy in *some detailed
respects*, so I looked and found that the S-99 eliminates all capacitors
for the 1^st RF tanks and the slugs for bands 3,4.? ?It is interesting
that? they still list C3 with L3, but C3 itself has vanished..
???typical copy and paste draughting [drafting if you¡¯re in USA]
*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Emanuele Girlando
via groups.io
*Sent:* Sunday, February 9, 2025 12:56 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!
Guys,
one of the reasons I wants to give up with this one is the poor design
in the ANT RF circuitry.
I noticed the schematic diagram anomalies, both the 1&2 bands wiring
error and the fancy S1A-REAR layout, at the same time as Don did. I was
shocked and disappointed by that.
Days ago, while approaching the refurbishing project of my S-85, I did
read that the SX-99 is a S-85 plus IF-XTAL and S-Meter. So I download
the SX-99 schematic diagram to compare with but I discovered:
1.the 1&2 bands wiring error and the fancy S1A-REAR layout are? exactly
the same in SX-99 as in S-85; that was shocking and disappointing for
the second time (!!).
2.the ANT RF circuitry design has been completely reviewed in SX-99
eliminating TRIMCAPs and introducing a more useful antenna trimmer you
can adjust while switching between? bands and/or connecting different
antenna types input socket.
My conclusion was that the S-85 ANT circuit doesn't worth any additional
effort to be understood or further analyzed: The Hallicrafters it self
changed its design in successive projects..
Furthermore, IMHO, there is no point in having a ANT tuned circuit
inside the radio when, in everyday use, you would have to retune it
every time you change bands or the type of antenna connected to the
radio. Consequently? I got the conclusion that leaving it as "wide" as
possible sounds like a good choice.
In the hope of modifying my S-85 by reproducing the solution found in
the SX-99, I also checked if the coils part numbers were the same but,
unfortunately, they are not.
The only remaining test I want to do on this one is to align ANT and MIX
RF stages with the chassis inside the cabinet.
In other words I want to check if the service manual statement:
should be read as: "RF alignment *_MUST_* be made with chassis in the
cabinet. ...".
Thank you all once again.
--
Emanuele (IU1KNR).
<>
--
don??? va3drl
|
don Root