ad: UR5CDX-1

Why are hams selling their Heathkit radios?

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by KR2C, Feb 5, 2020.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-3
ad: Subscribe
ad: Left-2
ad: abrind-2
  1. W1VT

    W1VT Ham Member QRZ Page

    If those numbers are right, the IMD products for 800 and 1800 Hz fall 200Hz below the carrier and at 2.8 kHz. Those frequencies aren't in passband either.
    For instance, a test of the Yaesu 450D showed the TX passband only going up to 2330Hz.

    We published pictures of spectrum analyzer plots in the magazine for decades. Readers can look at the pictures and decide for themselves.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2020
    KA0HCP and N2EY like this.
  2. N2EY

    N2EY XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    In fact, Collins only made ham gear because Art Collins wanted them to. The story is told that the ham gear line was sold at or even below cost; the profit was in government/military sales, broadcast transmitters, etc. @K9STH has given a good account of Collins history.

    It would be more accurate to say that EFJ never made amateur HF receivers or transceivers and never really committed to SSB.

    EFJ made the Pacemaker transmitter in the 1950s, and the Invader and Invader 2000 were two versions of the same transmitter; in fact, an Invader could be made into an Invader 2000 quite easily (with the upgrade modules) if desired. There was also an SSB adapter for the Valiant II. None sold well.

    EFJ developed their "Avenger" HF transceiver, which was an advanced (for the time) hybrid SSB/CW transceiver with two VFOs and some other features. But it cost so much to make that it never got beyond the prototype stage.

    EFJ also made linear amplifiers (most notably the Thunderbolt), Transmatches (the "Matchbox"), and various accessories. Also a line of parts such as variable capacitors, tube sockets, etc.

    But while other manufacturers such as Heathkit, Collins, Drake, Hallicrafters, National and others saw that the amateur market for transceivers and matched-pair transmitter/receiver sets that could transceive was growing rapidly, EFJ didn't, and faded away from the amateur market in the mid-to-late 1960s.
     
  3. N2EY

    N2EY XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    I did - and noted the reference was explained, and the 6 dB difference.

    I don't know of anyone other than ARRL who was doing that kind of independent testing of amateur gear and publishing the results back then.


    73 de Jim, N2EY
     
    KA0HCP likes this.
  4. KM1H

    KM1H Ham Member QRZ Page

    Your hatred of National products, and myself as I was there 1963-69, is well known and that alone discredits much of what you say.

    However, the NCX-5 alignment procedure in the manual was a copy of the actual manufacturing procedure and not meant to be used for general repairs in the field. Even the National Radio Service Dept did not have all that equipment and most any competent tech could fix his at home with either the plug in National calibrator or any other one.

    I have to assume that you never serviced a NCX-5...... but that doesnt ever stop you becoming an instant expert on most everything. A legend ..............

    National simply went out of their way to provide as much information as possible, unlike most other companies.
    Alignment tools were a normal part of any techs toolbox and there was nothing special/unique for any National product.

    Carl
     
  5. W1VT

    W1VT Ham Member QRZ Page

    Not only did we publish results, but we did the best we could to publish consistent results, so that people could easily make comparisons throughout the decades.
    I know the production department did a lot of work to make this happen even though we went through different generations of test equipment.
     
    N2EY likes this.
  6. KM1H

    KM1H Ham Member QRZ Page


    That again shows your ignorance of the subject but you are compelled to comment anyway.
     
  7. W1VT

    W1VT Ham Member QRZ Page

    If transmit IMD is so important why did a company selling a transmitter with superb IMD sign off on a review done on a radio with a design error, so that the full potential did not appear in the review?
    They later found the issue and the ARRL tested the radio again and published new test data. They used a coupler that fed too much signal back into the radio's distortion cancellation circuitry.
     
    N2EY likes this.
  8. KM1H

    KM1H Ham Member QRZ Page

    Only two fall out of the passband which is better than nothing and the commercial/military products used those wider filters.

    A white noise method would be ideal but I dont hold out hope for the ARRL to actually do much to benefit potential buyers.

    Modern SDR gear uses the phasing method of sideband generation and the bandwidth can be set to whatever is wanted so as that increases in popularity your arguments become moot. The IC-7300 for starters at the low end. The huge selling TS-890S TX BW is adjustable to 4 kHz.

    How many times are you going to repeat that hogwash? Consider that ~ 17% just US of hams belong to the ARRL to start with and the rest have to resort to forums and OTA discussions to get the actual truth. That includes the complete planet....not just Newington.

    BTW, some of those old SA plots are laughable since ancient equipment was in use for many years after it was obsolete in any other respectable RF lab where the proper resolution is used.
     
  9. KM1H

    KM1H Ham Member QRZ Page

    Consistency??
     
  10. KA0HCP

    KA0HCP XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    The ARRL uses the same testing standard on all radios. The method is openly explained. The test results are comparable for all radios.

    Nothing is hidden or cherry picked.
     
    N2EY likes this.

Share This Page