Homebrew Challenges Much Like Ours: The Direct Conversion Receiver of Wes Hayward W7ZOI and Dick Bingham W7WKR -- QST November 1968

 

https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-DX/QST/60s/QST-1968-11.pdf

I was thinking about some of the challenges faced by the builders of the SolderSmoke Direct Conversion Challenge Receiver, and about how similar these challenges are to those described by Wes Hayward W7ZOI and Dick Bingham W7WKR in the November 1968 QST article that launched the direct conversion revolution among radio amateurs. You can read the full article beginning on page 15 in the link above.

Some observations and comparisons:    

--The November 1968 QST article said, "This receiver was designed for simplicity and ease of duplication, rather than ultimate performance."  Ours too! 

-- Wes's receiver has a single tuned circuit in the BP filter.  Ours has two LC circuits. 

-- Wes's mixer is also a diode ring.  He starts out using hot carrier (Shotkey) diodes, but later concludes that ordinary diodes would work just fine.  We reached a similar conclusion.  But I wonder if the ordinary diodes would work well with a low output level from the single FET VFO (see below). 

-- His oscillator uses a single MPF-102 in a Hartley configuration with no voltage regulation, and no buffer.  We have two active devices and a Zener diode.  This article makes me think we could have made our PTO even simpler.  

-- Wes's receiver has a low-pass filter between the mixer and the AF amp.  The cutoff is at around 2 kHz.  This seems quite low in frequency and may reflect a preference for CW.  It features 88 mH coils that are now quite hard to find. The goal of this filter seems to be to prevent signals from beyond the audible frequency range from overloading the AF amp.  We ended up using the diplexer from the W7EL optimized QRP rig.  I think this diplexer takes care of the problem.  

-- The W7ZOI/W7WKR receiver has no AF nor RF gain control.  When encountering a strong SSB signals, the article recommends detuning the BP filter.  I think our AF gain control, and the mod calling for an RF gain control will give the operator, well, more control and will prevent strong SSB signals from overloading the AF amplifiers.  The RF gain pot might also help prevent SW broadcast AM breathrough. 

-- One big difference between our receiver and the November 1968 QST receiver:  isolation of the VFO.  The QST article puts the VFO in an aluminum box above the chassis.  We have the PTO without any shielding right alongside the other circuits.  Builders might want to experiment with the kind of isolation recommended by the QST article.  Would this kind of isolation and shielding improve performance? 

-- Wes also obviously contended with oscillation by the AF amplifier, as did many of our builders.  The QST article contains a number of recommendations: First test the amplifier to see if you can hear noise.  If it oscillates, try increasing the value of the decoupling resistors. (Many of our builders added electolytic caps to the DC power line in the AF amp.)  The article recommends trying a .01uF cap across the output.  It also recommends keeping the output of the amplifier away from the low pass filter at the input.  Wes's design has no transformer as it makes use of high Z headphones. 

-- The QST article says that the product detector performed adequetly with an LO injection level of .6 volts peak-to-peak.  This seems quite low to me,  but perhaps this would work with hot carrier diodes in the diode ring?    This might be one good reason to use diodes that have a lower turn-on voltage -- you could get away with using a super-simple VFO even if it provides lwer voltages to the mixer.  It might be fun to experiment in this area.  

As readers can see, the challenges faced by the builders of the SolderSmoke DC receiver were very similar to those face by the builders of  the November 1968 machine.  I think all of us should find this very encouraging.  

Thanks again Wes and Dick. 

What Homebrew Looks Like (And W9BRD comment on the High School receiver project)

Clikc on the picture for a clearer view of this fantastic image

Dave Newkirk is the son of Rod Newkirk, the guy who wrote the inspirational "How's DX?" column for QST for so many years.  Dave is obviously a very prolific and proficient homebrewer himself.  I really appreciate his comment on the High School receiver project.  Thanks Dave. 

Dave wrote on QRZ.com: 

Rummaging around the net for such phrases as "TJ receiver" or variations that include AA1TJ and receiver returns no solid hits, but by following clues I found a/the article with schematic at https://hackaday.io/project/190327-high-schoolers-build-a-radio-receiver. That's a well-thought-out design that'll provide fun, fun, fun.

I think I have something like 8 homemade receivers available at the moment at W9BRD, tube-based and solid-state, regenerative and superhet. all told covering 160 through 17 meters (if I include my tube-based and solid-state converters), and about the same number of homemade transmitters. With some exceptions for particular on-air celebrations and events, commonly my entire station lineup is homemade from stem to stern, so to speak.

I've been building radio gear since 1968. Here's some recent fun:

Zed thread covering the development of a converter-plus-regenerative-tuner combo that I came to call the "Super 3-in-9":

https://forums.qrz.com/index.php?th...ceiver-using-one-9-pin-miniature-tube.897249/

Zed thread covering construction of my version of a coffee-can-based receiver/converter combo my father used for 15ish years as his main station receiver after beginning its construction in 1951ish "on a kitchen table in Hartford" while working at ARRL HQ:

https://forums.qrz.com/index.php?th...building-a-160-meter-coffee-can-regen.938709/

To which discussion our own @N2EY kindly posted the mid-1960s "How's DX?" lead in which Dad laid out his station design/configuration/construction philosophy ( https://forums.qrz.com/index.php?th...0-meter-coffee-can-regen.938709/#post-7021505 ).

To us, commercial/mil/pro gear has been and always will be various shades of inspiring to fabulous, but only with homemade gear are we home.

A little Night Radio Romance at W9BRD, featuring the BRD-160CC 160-m regenerative receiver and converter (transmitter and antenna tuner not shown). 

Mike WU2D's Video on the SimpleX Super Receiver -- Part II

 Another FB video from Mike WU2D.   

But you know,  I too find myself kind of opposed to front panel on-off switches.  I power my rigs with small DC supplies.  I just turn on the supply when I want to use one of the rigs.  I don't have or need a switch on the front panel of the rig.  

I especially liked Mike's use of the gate dip meter and, of course, the Q meter.  FB OM. 

I must say I have a preference for the first version, but only because I dislike the regenerative circuit in the second version.  I do like the newer-style coils -- I have one in the BFO of the Mate for the Mighty Midget receiver.   

Thanks Mike for the sideband inversion factoid in Part 1!   The Hallas Rule -- words to live by. 

One word of caution.  I used 6U8s on my Mate for the Mighty Midget receiver.  I had good results, but WA9WFA had a lot of trouble.  We eventually concluded that the 6U8s didn't age well.  And they were quite long in the tooth.  We found (from the tube guys) that 6EA8s aged better and were a good and easy sub for the venerable (perhaps TOO venerable) 6U8s.  I switched tubes in my rig and it did seem to work better.  BTW, this is the receiver that I use to listen to the Old Military Radio Net on Saturday mornings.  

Here is the story of our switch from 6U8s to 6EA8s: 

https://soldersmoke.blogspot.com/2022/02/6ea8s-in-mate-for-mighty-midget-and.html

SimpleX Super Superhet Receiver -- A Great Video from Mike WU2D

Here is another great video (and project) from Mike WU2D.  I'm a big fan of homebrew superhets.  And wow, Mike presents a band-imaging superhet!  Two bands for (almost) the price of one!  I have FIVE homebrew dual-band band-imaging transceivers around me.  Believe me, once you have the experience needed to build an SSB transceiver, a dual-bander is the way to go.  Five bands seems like a bit too much.  But two seems to be at the sweet spot.  

I wrote to Mike reminding him to talk about the sideband inversion problem.  This rig will invert the 75 meter signals,  but this is easily resolved by just shifting the BFO frequency.  I also pointed out that many of today's builders will be detered by the need to scrounge for parts.  Where oh where is the BOM OM? 

Thanks Mike! 

Bringing a Faulty Herring Aid 5 Receiver Into the Light -- Fixing the AF Amp Schematic Error (video)

I picked up this old homebrew receiver in March 2023 at the Vienna Wireless Society's Winterfest Hamfest.  It is a Herring Aid 5.   I was surprised to see that the builder (who was he?) got the windings on the VFO transformer right.  Later, I learned that he had also substituted MPF-102s for the original Radio Shack FETs called for in the QST article. This allowed him to overcome the PC board layout problem at Q5 (VFO).  With an MPF-102, he was able to get Q1 working by kind of shoe-horning the leads into the proper holes.  FB OM.  Whoever he was, he seemed like a really competent builder.

The Hamfest Herring Aid 5

But then I started wondering:  Did he also overcome the big problem in the audio amplifier?  You see, there is an egregious error in the QST schematic.  Between the collector of Q3 and the base of Q4 (the two AF amplifiers) they have a 10uF capacitor to ground.  That would send most of the audio to ground. This is clearly a mistake.  Not only does it not make any sense, but this cap to ground does not appear in the PC board drawing, nor in the photograph that went with the QST article.  I included this cap in my 2014 built of the Herring Aid 5, but with it, I found the receiver to be exceedingly deaf.  When I clipped that capacitor out of the circuit, my 2014 Herring Aid 5 sprang to life.  Did this hamfest Herring Aid 5 have the error capacitor?  Would it too be brought into the light by clipping one lead?  

Sadly, the erroneous third capacitor was there, and it was wired into the circuit.  The receiver worked,  but just barely.  It was very deaf.  You could not hear 40 meter band noise, and you could barely hear strong CW signals.  Builders may have thought that this was normal with such a simple receiver. 

3 10uF caps. The center one is an error.  I have clipped it out

In the video above you can see what happens when I cut the lead to the mistake capacitor.  Suddenly, you can hear band noise, and CW signals.  The receiver comes to life -- for the very first time!  

This was an error that echoed through the decades.  As far as I know there was never a published errata.  The erroneous capacitor is there in the 1977 ARRL book entitled Understanding Amateur Radio.  In 1998,  NORCAL QRP redid the Herring Aid 5.  Incredibly, THEY INCLUDED THE OFFENDING CAPACITOR in their new and improved schematic.  

NORCAL's 1998 Schematic included C14

I'm fixing up this old receiver a bit.  It was nice to have it playing 40 meter CW yesterday.  Better late than never.  

This morning I was feeling kind of guilty about paying so much attention to a receiver from 1976.  But then I opened the paper and read about the recent find of a DeLorean car.  Heck if a DeLorean from the early 80's is worthy of attention, so is a homebrew receiver from the late 1970s. 

How a Homebrewer Substituted MPF102s for the RS 2035 FETs in the Herring Aid 5 -- Who built this one? Any others out there?

The Hamfest Herring Aid 5

For background on all this, see yesterday's blog post:     https://soldersmoke.blogspot.com/2023/10/a-big-error-discovered-in-1976-qst.html

Rick WD5L noted that it was remarkable how the builder of the Herring Aid 5 that I found early in 2023 at a hamfest had built his receiver using MPF102s at Q1 and Q5.  Here is how this builder  kind of "shoe horned" MPF 102s into the QST Herring Aid 5 boards.  Pinouts for the MPF102 and the RS 2035 and the PC Board Pattern for the Herring Aid 5 appear below. 

Above  is Q5 the VFO.  You can see how he "flipped it around" to get the Drain, Gate, and source in the proper holes. You can also see how he wound the transformer for the VFO.  Looks like there was  a real battle with the soldering iron here. 

Above is Q1 (RF amp).  Again clearly an MPF 102.  But here it would not be sufficient to just flip the transistor around.  So he had to twist it and take the center lead and put it in the far right hole.  Note his markings on the board.  Looks like he made another hole for the MPF102 Gate (but he didn't really have to do this). 

DOES ANYONE KNOW WHO BUILT THIS RECEIVER?  

ARE THERE ANY OTHER HERRING AID 5s OUT THERE?

DSG

DGS! 

Click on the images for better views.

A Big Error Discovered in the 1976 QST "Herring Aid 5" Article (After 47 Years)

Click on image for a better view.  See arrows for Q1, Q5 and the parts list.

I tried as a teenager to build the Herring Aid 5 direct conversion receiver from the July 1976 issue of QST.  I could not get it to work. Important points: 1) I was attracted to the fact that this receiver used only parts available from local Radio Shack stores (I bought them) and 2) The article provided a PC board pattern (I also bought ferric chloride and etched a board). 

Looking back, I concluded that I had failed to get the VFO to oscillate.  I remember hearing signals when I tuned my HT-37 transmitter (on Cal, on 40) near the receiver.  I was very close, but I never got that Herring Aid 5 VFO to oscillate.

Thirty-eight years later I tried again to build the receiver.  Important points:  This time I used mostly junk box parts and Manhattan-style construction (no etching).  Still I could not get the VFO to work.  ZL2DEX spotted a problem -- I had wound the L6 and L7 coils with the wrong "winding sense."  I corrected this, and BOOM! the VFO sprang to life.  I assumed that I had made a similar "winding sense error" way back in 1976.  This, I thought, explained my failure to get the receiver working.  The QST article had warned that proper phasing of L6 and L7 was necessary.  I figured that I just hadn't fully understood what "proper phasing" meant.  So it was, I thought, all my fault.    

 

Here is the PC board pattern from QST.  Arrows show Q1 (DGS) and Q5 (DSG).  

But it is the same kind of FET!  Click on the image for a better view.

But then on October 17, 2023 a comment appeared on the SolderSmoke YouTube channel.  Rick WD5L had also -- back in the late 70's -- tried to build this receiver.  He recently looked closely at the recommended parts list (that we used!) and at the QST PC board pattern (that we also used). AND HE SPOTTED AN IMPORTANT ERROR IN THE QST PC BOARD PATTERN.   

Take a look at the pattern for Q5 above (see arrow).  That is the VFO FET.  A Radio Shack 2035 FET has a DGS pinout (see below).   The Gate is the center pin.  If you put this transistor into the PC board pattern above you would definitely be grounding the Gate.  There is no way the VFO would work under these circumstances.  Note too that the only other RS 2035 FET in the receiver is Q1 (the RF amplifier).  In the PC board pattern above Q1 is marked correctly as DGS.  This confirms the error in the Q5 PC board pattern.  There is no way an RS 2035 transistor can simultaneously have two different pinouts! 

Wow.  So this failure to get the VFO working may not have been my fault after all.  I may have actually gotten the transformer winding correct, but even if I did, there is no way this VFO would have worked using the part called for by QST and the PC board pattern shown above.  As a teenager I just did not know enough to spot the error or the inconsistency.  I kind put blind trust in QST.  I just couldn't get the thing to work.  

Rick searched the QST archives to see if they ever put out an errata on this.  So far, nothing. Worse yet, the scan of the PC board pattern on the QST site is very unclear and may have the pin designations on Q5 scratched out. This would make it more difficult to spot the problem.  (The image above is not from ARRL.  It is from a high quality scan of the original QST article done this week by a fellow Vienna Wireless Society member.)  Please let us know if you find any kind of errata or any acknowledgment of error.  

This is really pretty bad.  This was a project aimed at novices.  Far from encouraging homebrewing, this type of mistake is the kind of thing that would push people away from the soldering iron.  

Ironically, I may have been doomed by opting to use the QST PC board.  If I had used Manhattan-style construction (as I did in my more recent build) I would not have fallen victim to this PC board pattern error.  Also, if I had built this thing stage-by-stage (as we always now recommend) I would have more clearly realized (back in 1976) that the problem was in the VFO stage.  But I was 17 and didn't know.  I put blind faith in the QST article.  It never occurred to me that something in print could be wrong.  This realization came much later. 

There is more to talk about on this ill-fated project. In future posts I will discuss another error, this one in the AF amplifier.  And possible additional errors...  And I'll write about the 1998 resurrection of this project by NORCAL QRP and the New Jersey QRP clubs.  

Thanks to Rick WD5L for spotting the PC board error.