R554 may also be a case of oops ( on purpose) we forgot to update the
manual from what is produced at the factory. I know the headaches with
ECN s....
( btw i have 390 IF deck on the bench looks like T506 loses gain...low
audio out, all external caps good, so 510pf internal has silver death
wish to be fixed as time permits in next month...so it is literally
belly up at the moment)
Jacques thanks - I need to re think the suppressor acting as a diode
/clamp...I had not looked at it quite that way. that local loop seems to
get in its own way, hmmm, maybe not as it just keeps raising/lowering
the bar for as you suggest for linearization.
Just out of curiosity have you guys looked at Clark Hatch's AGC circuit?
I do not have a copy handy otherwise I would attach it...(.in ER a while
back.) It looked good.
Renée
On 10/14/24 10:45 AM, Jacques Fortin wrote:
Hi David,
The "other" question about this R554 value change is: why a 1W part is
specified (as the R608 and R632) ??
Is it really the R554 reference "misplaced" in the stock list or an effect of "use a
value already there" ?
Maybe there is a field change issued somewhere that left no trace...
Or like the changes applied to their R-390A by the USN, that are not present on
other units ?
V509 at AGC voltage: yes, like there is a "local" AGC loop around the AGC
Amplifier stage.
Not sure of the intended purpose... AGC characteristic linearization ?
I have already plotted the R-390A AGC characteristic (stock circuit) and from
that, I believe that the Lankford mod for SSB reception (diodes bypassing
resistors in the AGC circuit) does more harm than good to the whole receiver.
I developed a simple circuit that reacts faster to the instantaneous RF signal
changes (fast attack) while preserving the original AGC characteristic (that
influences the Carriel Level Meter calibration).
But I still have a lot of testing to do about it.
73, Jacques, VE2JFE in Montreal
-----Message d'origine-----
De : [email protected] <[email protected]> De la part
de David Wise
Envoyé : 14 octobre 2024 12:40
À : Jacques Fortin <[email protected]>; [email protected]; 'Barry'
<[email protected]>
Cc : 'R-390 Mailing List' <[email protected]>
Objet : Re: [R-390] Mystery Component
I'm with Jaques. As long as there's enough plate voltage on V509 (6BJ6 pentode AGC
Amplifier) to pull electrons through the suppressor grid, the exact plate voltage - and
R554's value - is "don't care". The 6BJ6 is sensitive to cathode current
(R552) and screen voltage (R553), but not plate voltage.
There is a complication. Note that V509's suppressor grid is at AGC voltage. As signal
strength - and negative AGC voltage - increases, the suppressor goes negative, requiring
more plate voltage to exceed the "don't care" threshold. But I think Collins
was looking for diode clamp action at zero signal when R558 tries to pull the AGC line
positive. I have personally observed, the pentode suppressor grid makes a lousy diode;
the real clamp is the V511 (12AU7 triode AGC Time Constant) grid.
R560 was mentioned. Personal experience borne out of the Wise/Gitzen Carrier
Meter Retrofit mod: it has substantial effect on the Carrier Meter.
Specifically, lower R makes the law steeper, so it reads higher at high signal.
HTH,
Dave Wise
SWL (inactive)
________________________________
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of
Jacques Fortin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2024 8:28 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; 'Barry' <[email protected]>
Cc: 'R-390 Mailing List' <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [R-390] Mystery Component
I am still wondering about why the R554 value change have been implemented, and if ever
it was an "official" change...
Yes, it is documented as such in the TM11-5820-357-35P of 1964 (see attached)
but no other traces anywhere.
If the purpose was to "boost" the gain of the AGC amplifier stage, this is
quite futile, as the loading impedance of the Z503 is way over any effect coming from the
change of the 6BJ6 plate supply voltage caused by the R554 value reduction.
The 6BJ6 is a pentode, so relatively insensitive to the plate supply value
changes...
More (a lot, in fact) gain change would have been achieved by lowering the
value of R553.
Or even lowering the value of R552 for that matter...
I already made some trials with Larry Haney in the R-390A IF deck related to
the AGC Amplifier gain: changing the 6BA6 for a 6AU6 and changing the cathode
resistor value between AM and SSB (BFO ON) modes to provide more AGC primary
voltage when SSB is received.
It works, but I am still not satisfied with the results.
Anyways, I will made some tests the next time I can extract the IF deck from my
R-390/URR.
73, Jacques, VE2JFE in Montreal
-----Message d'origine-----
De : [email protected] <[email protected]> De la part de Renee K6FSB
Envoyé : 14 octobre 2024 02:53 À : Jacques Fortin <[email protected]>; 'Barry'
<[email protected]> Cc : 'R-390 Mailing List' <[email protected]> Objet : Re: [R-390]
Mystery Component
Barry- 1964 Manual hmmmm maybe....hmmm..... thanks at least you found the
possible source. I do not even recall why or what back then....
I wonder since the R390 was being replaced by the R390A no one bothered to
document it fully?
Renée
On 10/13/24 9:19 PM, Jacques Fortin wrote:
Hi Barry,
I found that this resistor value was logged as 470 ohms in the FIELD DEPOT AND
MAINTENANCE PARTS LIST (1964 edition).
But there is no trace of it in any engineering change sheets (the C1, C2, C3
and C4).
R554 is a 2200 ohms in the 1953 parts list, however.
The latest schematics still show R554 as a 2200 ohms part and all the values
changes from the C1,2,3,4 are also incorporated in those.
So where is the bug ? In the latest parts list ??
BTW, I have nothing in my notes regarding R554 when I restored my R-390.
Meaning that the R554 fitted in my set when I got it was a 2200 ohms !
73, Jacques, VE2JFE in Montreal
______________________________________________________________
R-390 mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[email protected]
This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
