>Tom Rauch wrote:
>>> >is no good. I should have a known good one tomorrow to check it out.
>>> >In the meantime I have seen several things that need to be done.
>>> >glitch diodes, glitch resistor, new suppressor unit, etc. Live and
>>> >learn (or re-learn??)
>>99% of that stuff is just needless folklore originated by people who
>While rooting around inside the SB-1000, I checked the carbon resistor
>in the paralytic choke... good as new.
** What was the measured resistance? // I have found that intermittent
vhf parasites are so brief they can damage the element of a carbon-comp
resistor without exhibiting damage to the moulded case. Thus, a
new-appearing carbon-comp resistor can have several times more ohms than
its specified value.
>>> Take care about the glitch diode. In an SB-1000 (same animal) that
>>> someone else had "pre-repaired", I had weird meter readings on 160m
>>> until the glitch diode was replaced with a 1N5408. It turned out that
>>> his no-name diode was rectifying at 1.8MHz!
>>He might not have installed the RF choke or the bypass caps, or used a
>>diode with a low threshold voltage.
>The RF choke and bypass caps were there as standard. Since the screwy
>meter readings were only on one band (the lowest) I put it down to RF
>rectification rather than purely threshold voltage.
** In your opinion, is 88-ohms of XC an acceptable bypass for c. 1A-rms
of RF current?
- R. L. Measures, a.k.a. Rich..., 805.386.3734,AG6K,