Maynard, I began another reply?? but I am verrrrrry sloooooooooooow.

I just looked that up and ?C62 is on the S-40B the parts list? but it is
notinthe S-85 list

see ..

<>
.

All Hallicrafters there =
<>

*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Maynard Wright via
groups.io
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 12, 2025 7:18 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!

Could the omission of C62 from the S-85 be just from the schematic (an
error)? Maybe the actual S-85 has a C62. Just a thought: I don't have
an S-85 to check that out.

73,

Maynard
W6PAP


--
don??? va3drl

?

Could the omission of C62 from the S-85 be just from the schematic (an
error)? Maybe the actual S-85 has a C62. Just a thought: I don't have
an S-85 to check that out.

73,

Maynard
W6PAP
?

Maynard

Perhaps you are speaking of the S-40B only until a few final words.

I think that Bands 3 and 4 are easily understood as they use L5 and L4,
respectively. _yes_

Note that switch S1B (front) connects the output of tube V1 to the
primary of L5 for Band 2, just as for Band 3, but with R6 in series._yes_

The B terminal of L6 is then placed by S1B (rear) between the junction
of C62 and R35, with the A terminal of L6 grounded, so it places a
parallel tuned circuit across the path from V1's plate circuit to V2's
grid circuit. Well I guess that is what I showed on a simple image I
sent, showing signal flow?

But I'm looking at the schematic for the S-40B and the S-85 doesn't have
C62, so there is something going on here that I am not seeing. Me tooIn
addition, C62 has a very high reactance at the frequencies of Bands 1
and 2, so I suspect that it doesn't constitute the principal coupling
path between stages. Well I think is does the coupling but hopefully
does not disturb ?the tuned tank..???
And it does the same trick for band 1.. only on the S-40B.

Now, Look what C62 is doing in the S40A, but only on band 2 [I just sent
that]. ?In the S-40B, C62 is moved up top, as you mentioned and must be
needed on both 1,and 2. But then the S-85 and ?99 don’t have any
substitute path for the C-62 coupling

Thinking back to Emanuele’s problem, I just recalled that the cap range
of the trim caps is a factor of 10, **._,_

Note that C-62 is in the parts list for the S-40B but not for ?the S-85.
So we still need Help!!!


--
don??? va3drl

Is there a URL for the revised schematic?
Jim

Logic: Method used to arrive at the wrong conclusion, with confidence.
Murphy


On Tuesday, February 11, 2025 at 10:42:13 AM CST, Maynard Wright via
groups.io <m-wright@...> wrote:


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


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
“苍辞迟肠丑”

*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

Yes, but still looking for answers to original question/problem, and
nobody has proposed an answer for the Mixer tank area for bands 1,2 … so…

As I see it the S-99 looks like the S-85? also.

Now backing up to the S-40A ?we see one unusual concoction partly like
some others

*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Maynard Wright via
groups.io
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 12, 2025 1:07 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!

This has turned into a lengthy thread, but I think it is worthwhile as
more than one family of Hallicrafters receivers seems to have adopted
the unusual circuitry, at least in their schematics, and in their actual
implementations, if I am correct, maybe beginning with the S-40B.

Resolving this might be helpful to others who, in the future, come up
against this odd arrangement and wonder whether they should rewire things.

73,

Maynard
W6PAP

On 2/12/25 03:35, Maynard Wright via groups.io wrote:

It certainly looks as if there is a problem with the schematic, and I
thought that was the case, but I think now that the original schematic
is correct and that rewiring it to make it look "normal" will impair or
fail Bands 1 and 2.

My thoughts about the input circuit follow. This assumes that the
signal path is coupled between the two windings of L3 even though the
Hallicrafters schematics of the S-85 and S-40B don't show that. The
very good schematic of the S-40B by dexterdxer@... does show a
dashed line around the two windings of L3, which is, I think, a good
addition to the original schematic:

Band 4:

The signal passes through L1, with D/C as the the primary and B/A as the
secondary. As the primary is connected to antenna terminals A1 and A2,
the input may be either balanced or, by using the link between A2 and G,
unbalanced.

Band 3:

The signal passes through L2, with C/D as the the primary and A/B as the
secondary. As the primary is connected to antenna terminals A1 and A2,
the input may be either balanced or, by using the link between A2 and G,
unbalanced.

Band 2:

The signal passes through L3, with D/C as the primary and B/A as the
secondary. As the signal is passed from antenna terminal A1 through the
primary of L3 (terminal D) to ground (terminal C), antenna terminal A2
is left unused and only the unbalanced option is available. Switch S1A
leaves R65 open in this position.

Band 1:

The signal passes through L3, with B/A as the primary and D/C as the
secondary. As the signal is passed from antenna terminal A1 through the
primary of L3 (terminal B) to ground (terminal A), antenna terminal A2
is left unused and only the unbalanced option is available. Switch S1A
places R65 in series with input terminal B in this position.

Condensation of this scheme:

Band 4: L1 D/C primary B/A secondary
Band 3: L2 C/D primary A/B secondary
Band 2: L3 D/C primary B/A secondary
Band 1: L3 B/A primary D/C secondary

The circuitry between V1 and V2 is also a bit odd, but I think it is
also ok as in the schematic. But it uses an entirely different scheme
than does the input circuitry.

73,

Maynard
W6PAP


On 2/11/25 22:18, Richard Knoppow via groups.io wrote:

I need to take my own suggestion and redraw the circuits for the RF
amplifier.
It is usual for schematics to show coils and transformers in the
order they are used in the bands but the S-85 seems not to. In
particular the two low frequency bands seem to be reversed. Looking at
designations for the parts and alignment data tends to confirm this
to me.
If this is correct the third band down from the top of the
schematic is the lowest frequency band, i.e. the MW broadcast band.
Redrawing may make it clear what the resistor is. I can think of two
possibilities: one that is is to reduce gain. A common feature in
all-wave receivers since, at least in their primary market in the U.S.
signal strength on the broadcast band is often extremely high causing
overload and cross-modulation. Secondly; it may be to "spoil" the Q of
the resonator to broad-band it a little to improve fidelity. This is
also done fairly often in receivers with broadcast band capability. The
bandwidth can be increased a bit without reducing the image rejection
much. Neither of these may be the case but a circuit analysis will help
prove it.
I am sure Emmanuel feels as though we have stolen his ball and run
away with it. Perhaps he will have an insight as to the problem and
up-stage us all. What set me off was the suggestion that the design was
faulty even though its been used in at least two fairly mass-produced
commercial receivers. This still doesn't answer why the two bottom bands
don't work but redrawing the circuits may do that.
One can't ignore the converter stage either since if there is a
problem in tuning or the oscillator doesn't work the results in the
same, i.e. a dead or partially dead band.
Its always frustrating to encounter something like where the
equipment is very remote and one can't just have at it.

On 2/11/2025 6:37 PM, don Root wrote:

Maynard , there is one clue for band 2, that being that R6 will pull rf
?plate current thru L5… but then what.

Band 1 draws that plate current thru R26, C29 … but how does a signal
get to L6.

Looking at the alignment stuff layout, there is nothing unusual around
L6, so no clue there. At those frequencies we don’t expect ?invisible
gimmicks do we?

We will be in the loony bin soon! If we don’t get help from the Halli-
gurus ??….HELP!!!


--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL
SKCC 19998


--
don??? va3drl

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
“苍辞迟肠丑”

*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

?

This has turned into a lengthy thread, but I think it is worthwhile as
more than one family of Hallicrafters receivers seems to have adopted
the unusual circuitry, at least in their schematics, and in their actual
implementations, if I am correct, maybe beginning with the S-40B.

Resolving this might be helpful to others who, in the future, come up
against this odd arrangement and wonder whether they should rewire things.

73,

Maynard
W6PAP

On 2/12/25 03:35, Maynard Wright via groups.io wrote:

It certainly looks as if there is a problem with the schematic, and I
thought that was the case, but I think now that the original schematic
is correct and that rewiring it to make it look "normal" will impair or
fail Bands 1 and 2.

My thoughts about the input circuit follow. This assumes that the
signal path is coupled between the two windings of L3 even though the
Hallicrafters schematics of the S-85 and S-40B don't show that. The
very good schematic of the S-40B by dexterdxer@... does show a
dashed line around the two windings of L3, which is, I think, a good
addition to the original schematic:

Band 4:

The signal passes through L1, with D/C as the the primary and B/A as the
secondary. As the primary is connected to antenna terminals A1 and A2,
the input may be either balanced or, by using the link between A2 and G,
unbalanced.

Band 3:

The signal passes through L2, with C/D as the the primary and A/B as the
secondary. As the primary is connected to antenna terminals A1 and A2,
the input may be either balanced or, by using the link between A2 and G,
unbalanced.

Band 2:

The signal passes through L3, with D/C as the primary and B/A as the
secondary. As the signal is passed from antenna terminal A1 through the
primary of L3 (terminal D) to ground (terminal C), antenna terminal A2
is left unused and only the unbalanced option is available. Switch S1A
leaves R65 open in this position.

Band 1:

The signal passes through L3, with B/A as the primary and D/C as the
secondary. As the signal is passed from antenna terminal A1 through the
primary of L3 (terminal B) to ground (terminal A), antenna terminal A2
is left unused and only the unbalanced option is available. Switch S1A
places R65 in series with input terminal B in this position.

Condensation of this scheme:

Band 4: L1 D/C primary B/A secondary
Band 3: L2 C/D primary A/B secondary
Band 2: L3 D/C primary B/A secondary
Band 1: L3 B/A primary D/C secondary

The circuitry between V1 and V2 is also a bit odd, but I think it is
also ok as in the schematic. But it uses an entirely different scheme
than does the input circuitry.

73,

Maynard
W6PAP


On 2/11/25 22:18, Richard Knoppow via groups.io wrote:

I need to take my own suggestion and redraw the circuits for the RF
amplifier.
It is usual for schematics to show coils and transformers in the
order they are used in the bands but the S-85 seems not to. In
particular the two low frequency bands seem to be reversed. Looking at
designations for the parts and alignment data tends to confirm this
to me.
If this is correct the third band down from the top of the
schematic is the lowest frequency band, i.e. the MW broadcast band.
Redrawing may make it clear what the resistor is. I can think of two
possibilities: one that is is to reduce gain. A common feature in
all-wave receivers since, at least in their primary market in the U.S.
signal strength on the broadcast band is often extremely high causing
overload and cross-modulation. Secondly; it may be to "spoil" the Q of
the resonator to broad-band it a little to improve fidelity. This is
also done fairly often in receivers with broadcast band capability. The
bandwidth can be increased a bit without reducing the image rejection
much. Neither of these may be the case but a circuit analysis will help
prove it.
I am sure Emmanuel feels as though we have stolen his ball and run
away with it. Perhaps he will have an insight as to the problem and
up-stage us all. What set me off was the suggestion that the design was
faulty even though its been used in at least two fairly mass-produced
commercial receivers. This still doesn't answer why the two bottom bands
don't work but redrawing the circuits may do that.
One can't ignore the converter stage either since if there is a
problem in tuning or the oscillator doesn't work the results in the
same, i.e. a dead or partially dead band.
Its always frustrating to encounter something like where the
equipment is very remote and one can't just have at it.

On 2/11/2025 6:37 PM, don Root wrote:

Maynard , there is one clue for band 2, that being that R6 will pull rf
?plate current thru L5… but then what.

Band 1 draws that plate current thru R26, C29 … but how does a signal
get to L6.

Looking at the alignment stuff layout, there is nothing unusual around
L6, so no clue there. At those frequencies we don’t expect ?invisible
gimmicks do we?

We will be in the loony bin soon! If we don’t get help from the Halli-
gurus ??….HELP!!!


--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL
SKCC 19998

Maynard, I think we agree on the RF tank situation, but you have not yet
explained the V1-V2 signal path for band 1, 2.

Until we can do that, it is hard to discuss what might be the problem in
Emanuele’s radio.

Richard has not yet managed to redraw any of the circuit, so I have no
idea what he has in mind.

R65 won’t bother the signal path, but it might widen the tuning, and
perhaps help to decouple resonances from some antennas; who knows, but
it is a fine detail IMO.

Since Nick mentioned the L6 area operation, I have been unable to find
any answer to the signal path there, and have not seen a proposal.,,, yet.

*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Maynard Wright via
groups.io
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 12, 2025 6:36 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!

It certainly looks as if there is a problem with the schematic, and I
thought that was the case, but I think now that the original schematic
is correct and that rewiring it to make it look "normal" will impair or
fail Bands 1 and 2.

My thoughts about the input circuit follow. This assumes that the
signal path is coupled between the two windings of L3 even though the
Hallicrafters schematics of the S-85 and S-40B don't show that. The
very good schematic of the S-40B by dexterdxer@... does show a
dashed line around the two windings of L3, which is, I think, a good
addition to the original schematic:

Band 4:

The signal passes through L1, with D/C as the the primary and B/A as the
secondary. As the primary is connected to antenna terminals A1 and A2,
the input may be either balanced or, by using the link between A2 and G,
unbalanced.

Band 3:

The signal passes through L2, with C/D as the the primary and A/B as the
secondary. As the primary is connected to antenna terminals A1 and A2,
the input may be either balanced or, by using the link between A2 and G,
unbalanced.

Band 2:

The signal passes through L3, with D/C as the primary and B/A as the
secondary. As the signal is passed from antenna terminal A1 through the
primary of L3 (terminal D) to ground (terminal C), antenna terminal A2
is left unused and only the unbalanced option is available. Switch S1A
leaves R65 open in this position.

Band 1:

The signal passes through L3, with B/A as the primary and D/C as the
secondary. As the signal is passed from antenna terminal A1 through the
primary of L3 (terminal B) to ground (terminal A), antenna terminal A2
is left unused and only the unbalanced option is available. Switch S1A
places R65 in series with input terminal B in this position.

Condensation of this scheme:

Band 4: L1 D/C primary B/A secondary
Band 3: L2 C/D primary A/B secondary
Band 2: L3 D/C primary B/A secondary
Band 1: L3 B/A primary D/C secondary

The circuitry between V1 and V2 is also a bit odd, but I think it is
also ok as in the schematic. But it uses an entirely different scheme
than does the input circuitry.

73,

Maynard
W6PAP


--
don??? va3drl

?

It certainly looks as if there is a problem with the schematic, and I
thought that was the case, but I think now that the original schematic
is correct and that rewiring it to make it look "normal" will impair or
fail Bands 1 and 2.

My thoughts about the input circuit follow. This assumes that the
signal path is coupled between the two windings of L3 even though the
Hallicrafters schematics of the S-85 and S-40B don't show that. The
very good schematic of the S-40B by dexterdxer@... does show a
dashed line around the two windings of L3, which is, I think, a good
addition to the original schematic:

Band 4:

The signal passes through L1, with D/C as the the primary and B/A as the
secondary. As the primary is connected to antenna terminals A1 and A2,
the input may be either balanced or, by using the link between A2 and G,
unbalanced.

Band 3:

The signal passes through L2, with C/D as the the primary and A/B as the
secondary. As the primary is connected to antenna terminals A1 and A2,
the input may be either balanced or, by using the link between A2 and G,
unbalanced.

Band 2:

The signal passes through L3, with D/C as the primary and B/A as the
secondary. As the signal is passed from antenna terminal A1 through the
primary of L3 (terminal D) to ground (terminal C), antenna terminal A2
is left unused and only the unbalanced option is available. Switch S1A
leaves R65 open in this position.

Band 1:

The signal passes through L3, with B/A as the primary and D/C as the
secondary. As the signal is passed from antenna terminal A1 through the
primary of L3 (terminal B) to ground (terminal A), antenna terminal A2
is left unused and only the unbalanced option is available. Switch S1A
places R65 in series with input terminal B in this position.

Condensation of this scheme:

Band 4: L1 D/C primary B/A secondary
Band 3: L2 C/D primary A/B secondary
Band 2: L3 D/C primary B/A secondary
Band 1: L3 B/A primary D/C secondary

The circuitry between V1 and V2 is also a bit odd, but I think it is
also ok as in the schematic. But it uses an entirely different scheme
than does the input circuitry.

73,

Maynard
W6PAP

It certainly looks as if there is a problem with the schematic, and I
thought that was the case, but I think now that the original schematic
is correct and that rewiring it to make it look "normal" will impair or
fail Bands 1 and 2.

My thoughts about the input circuit follow. This assumes that the
signal path is coupled between the two windings of L3 even though the
Hallicrafters schematics of the S-85 and S-40B don't show that. The
very good schematic of the S-40B by dexterdxer@... does show a
dashed line around the two windings of L3, which is, I think, a good
addition to the original schematic:

Band 4:

The signal passes through L1, with D/C as the the primary and B/A as the
secondary. As the primary is connected to antenna terminals A1 and A2,
the input may be either balanced or, by using the link between A2 and G,
unbalanced.

Band 3:

The signal passes through L2, with C/D as the the primary and A/B as the
secondary. As the primary is connected to antenna terminals A1 and A2,
the input may be either balanced or, by using the link between A2 and G,
unbalanced.

Band 2:

The signal passes through L3, with D/C as the primary and B/A as the
secondary. As the signal is passed from antenna terminal A1 through the
primary of L3 (terminal D) to ground (terminal C), antenna terminal A2
is left unused and only the unbalanced option is available. Switch S1A
leaves R65 open in this position.

Band 1:

The signal passes through L3, with B/A as the primary and D/C as the
secondary. As the signal is passed from antenna terminal A1 through the
primary of L3 (terminal B) to ground (terminal A), antenna terminal A2
is left unused and only the unbalanced option is available. Switch S1A
places R65 in series with input terminal B in this position.

Condensation of this scheme:

Band 4: L1 D/C primary B/A secondary
Band 3: L2 C/D primary A/B secondary
Band 2: L3 D/C primary B/A secondary
Band 1: L3 B/A primary D/C secondary

The circuitry between V1 and V2 is also a bit odd, but I think it is
also ok as in the schematic. But it uses an entirely different scheme
than does the input circuitry.

73,

Maynard
W6PAP


On 2/11/25 22:18, Richard Knoppow via groups.io wrote:

I need to take my own suggestion and redraw the circuits for the RF
amplifier.
It is usual for schematics to show coils and transformers in the
order they are used in the bands but the S-85 seems not to. In
particular the two low frequency bands seem to be reversed. Looking at
designations for the parts and alignment data tends to confirm this
to me.
If this is correct the third band down from the top of the
schematic is the lowest frequency band, i.e. the MW broadcast band.
Redrawing may make it clear what the resistor is. I can think of two
possibilities: one that is is to reduce gain. A common feature in
all-wave receivers since, at least in their primary market in the U.S.
signal strength on the broadcast band is often extremely high causing
overload and cross-modulation. Secondly; it may be to "spoil" the Q of
the resonator to broad-band it a little to improve fidelity. This is
also done fairly often in receivers with broadcast band capability. The
bandwidth can be increased a bit without reducing the image rejection
much. Neither of these may be the case but a circuit analysis will help
prove it.
I am sure Emmanuel feels as though we have stolen his ball and run
away with it. Perhaps he will have an insight as to the problem and
up-stage us all. What set me off was the suggestion that the design was
faulty even though its been used in at least two fairly mass-produced
commercial receivers. This still doesn't answer why the two bottom bands
don't work but redrawing the circuits may do that.
One can't ignore the converter stage either since if there is a
problem in tuning or the oscillator doesn't work the results in the
same, i.e. a dead or partially dead band.
Its always frustrating to encounter something like where the
equipment is very remote and one can't just have at it.

On 2/11/2025 6:37 PM, don Root wrote:

Maynard , there is one clue for band 2, that being that R6 will pull rf
?plate current thru L5… but then what.

Band 1 draws that plate current thru R26, C29 … but how does a signal
get to L6.

Looking at the alignment stuff layout, there is nothing unusual around
L6, so no clue there. At those frequencies we don’t expect ?invisible
gimmicks do we?

We will be in the loony bin soon! If we don’t get help from the Halli-
gurus ??….HELP!!!


--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL
SKCC 19998

I need to take my own suggestion and redraw the circuits for the RF
amplifier.
It is usual for schematics to show coils and transformers in the
order they are used in the bands but the S-85 seems not to. In
particular the two low frequency bands seem to be reversed. Looking at
designations for the parts and alignment data tends to confirm this to me.
If this is correct the third band down from the top of the
schematic is the lowest frequency band, i.e. the MW broadcast band.
Redrawing may make it clear what the resistor is. I can think of two
possibilities: one that is is to reduce gain. A common feature in
all-wave receivers since, at least in their primary market in the U.S.
signal strength on the broadcast band is often extremely high causing
overload and cross-modulation. Secondly; it may be to "spoil" the Q of
the resonator to broad-band it a little to improve fidelity. This is
also done fairly often in receivers with broadcast band capability. The
bandwidth can be increased a bit without reducing the image rejection
much. Neither of these may be the case but a circuit analysis will help
prove it.
I am sure Emmanuel feels as though we have stolen his ball and run
away with it. Perhaps he will have an insight as to the problem and
up-stage us all. What set me off was the suggestion that the design was
faulty even though its been used in at least two fairly mass-produced
commercial receivers. This still doesn't answer why the two bottom bands
don't work but redrawing the circuits may do that.
One can't ignore the converter stage either since if there is a
problem in tuning or the oscillator doesn't work the results in the
same, i.e. a dead or partially dead band.
Its always frustrating to encounter something like where the
equipment is very remote and one can't just have at it.

On 2/11/2025 6:37 PM, don Root wrote:

Maynard , there is one clue for band 2, that being that R6 will pull rf
?plate current thru L5… but then what.

Band 1 draws that plate current thru R26, C29 … but how does a signal
get to L6.

Looking at the alignment stuff layout, there is nothing unusual around
L6, so no clue there. At those frequencies we don’t expect ?invisible
gimmicks do we?

We will be in the loony bin soon! If we don’t get help from the Halli-
gurus ??….HELP!!!


--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL
SKCC 19998

Maynard , there is one clue for band 2, that being that R6 will pull rf
?plate current thru L5… but then what.

Band 1 draws that plate current thru R26, C29 … but how does a signal
get to L6.

Looking at the alignment stuff layout, there is nothing unusual around
L6, so no clue there. At those frequencies we don’t expect ?invisible
gimmicks do we?

We will be in the loony bin soon! If we don’t get help from the Halli-
gurus ??….HELP!!!

?

Interesting! I don't see a signal path for Band 1 from V1 to V2 for the
S-85, although, as you mention, C62 does it for the S-40B.

73,

Maynard
W6PAP

On 2/11/25 15:29, don Root wrote:

Maynard

OK for band 3,4 . but for 1,2…??? Via C62 ??in the S-40B? ok I guess,
???but in the S-85 how does the sig get to L6?? .

Will go to eye doc tomorrow!

*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Maynard Wright via
groups.io
*Sent:* Tuesday, February 11, 2025 5:52 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!

Actually, L6 does connect to the signal path between the output of V1
and the input (grid) of V2 when switch S1B connects it. L6, like L3,
has two windings. I'm looking at the S-40B drawing.

73,

Maynard
W6PAP

On 2/11/25 14:22, don Root wrote:

Nick you are a joker..hi-hi,? as shown, L6 never gets any signal from
the left but is connected to the caps and tube as expected at the
right.. That switch looks clear enough on the drawing. ?Maybe the
drawing has some UV components and wires? I am looking on the BAMA pdf
doc.?? maybe the paper wore thin?

*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Nick, W1NJC via
groups.io
*Sent:* Tuesday, February 11, 2025 12:18 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!

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?


--
don??? va3drl

Maynard

OK for band 3,4 . but for 1,2…??? Via C62 ??in the S-40B? ok I guess,
???but in the S-85 how does the sig get to L6?? .

Will go to eye doc tomorrow!

*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Maynard Wright via
groups.io
*Sent:* Tuesday, February 11, 2025 5:52 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!

Actually, L6 does connect to the signal path between the output of V1
and the input (grid) of V2 when switch S1B connects it. L6, like L3,
has two windings. I'm looking at the S-40B drawing.

73,

Maynard
W6PAP

On 2/11/25 14:22, don Root wrote:

Nick you are a joker..hi-hi,? as shown, L6 never gets any signal from
the left but is connected to the caps and tube as expected at the
right.. That switch looks clear enough on the drawing. ?Maybe the
drawing has some UV components and wires? I am looking on the BAMA pdf
doc.?? maybe the paper wore thin?

*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Nick, W1NJC via
groups.io
*Sent:* Tuesday, February 11, 2025 12:18 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!

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?


--
don??? va3drl

?

Actually, L6 does connect to the signal path between the output of V1
and the input (grid) of V2 when switch S1B connects it. L6, like L3,
has two windings. I'm looking at the S-40B drawing.

73,

Maynard
W6PAP

On 2/11/25 14:22, don Root wrote:

Nick you are a joker..hi-hi,? as shown, L6 never gets any signal from
the left but is connected to the caps and tube as expected at the
right.. That switch looks clear enough on the drawing. ?Maybe the
drawing has some UV components and wires? I am looking on the BAMA pdf
doc.?? maybe the paper wore thin?

*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Nick, W1NJC via
groups.io
*Sent:* Tuesday, February 11, 2025 12:18 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!

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?

Nick you are a joker..hi-hi,? as shown, L6 never gets any signal from
the left but is connected to the caps and tube as expected at the
right.. That switch looks clear enough on the drawing. ?Maybe the
drawing has some UV components and wires? I am looking on the BAMA pdf
doc.?? maybe the paper wore thin?

*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Nick, W1NJC via
groups.io
*Sent:* Tuesday, February 11, 2025 12:18 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!

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?