Forums :: Resources :: Features :: Photo Gallery :: Vintage Radio Shows :: Archives :: Books
Support This Site: Contributors :: Advertise


It is currently Nov Thu 15, 2018 6:22 pm


All times are UTC [ DST ]





Post New Topic Post Reply  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Swan 350 Alignment Question
PostPosted: Feb Mon 05, 2018 11:34 pm 
Member

Joined: Dec Sat 22, 2012 3:20 pm
Posts: 686
Location: Marenisco, MI
Working on a Swan 350. The manual is a mess. I started with the alignment procedure and the first thing is the VFO Amplifier Plate Circuit alignment. In one version it says: "with VTVM on pin 1 of V7 , receiver mixer, to ground on -15 volt scale and the VFO or calibrated RF signal generator fed to pin 1 of J6 adjust the VFO amplifierplate coils as follows." Then they have a chart telling you (for 80 meters) to set 8975 khz in sig gen and adjust , set the xcvr dial to 3800 and adjust coil L104." Am I missing something? I can't find any connector, plug or jack called J6. Do they mean vacuum tube V6?

It is even worse in a later version of the 350 manual that I found on the internet. In that version they said, "with VTVM on pin 1 of V7 , receiver mixer, to ground on -15 volt scale adjust vtvm plate coils for peak amplifier heading." Yes. HEADING. That's it. No mention made of injecting anything anywhere.

Anybody know how to read Swan's sloppy syntax?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Swan 350 Alignment Question
PostPosted: Feb Tue 06, 2018 12:51 am 
Member
User avatar

Joined: Jun Sun 19, 2011 2:31 pm
Posts: 5750
Well, Swan manual carelessness strikes again. The 350 was derived from the earlier 400 (which had no built in VFO). J6 is the VFO connector on the 400 but I suspect there isn't such on the 350 unless it has the dual VFO modification kit installed.

Pin 1 of the Swan 400 J6 feeds the control grid of the 6EW6 VFO amp and that is where you want to connect when following the poor instructions of the 350 manual.

Rodger WQ9E


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Swan 350 Alignment Question
PostPosted: Feb Tue 06, 2018 2:21 am 
Member
User avatar

Joined: Nov Mon 02, 2009 7:01 am
Posts: 3077
Location: Lincoln City, OR
Greetings to Sparksalot and the Forum:

You appear to have a corrupted copy (s) of the manual.

A signal generator is not required for the VFO alignment.... or for the IF. It is used only to provide signals for nulling the various traps.

I have made some PDF scans of the relevant pages, but they are too large to place here while retaining decent resolution. If you will PM me with your E-mail address, I will send you the files. There are three pages, and at decent resolution, they are about 1.5 Mbytes each.

Regards,

_________________
Jim T.
KB6GM


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Swan 350 Alignment Question
PostPosted: Feb Tue 06, 2018 2:35 am 
Member

Joined: Dec Sat 22, 2012 3:20 pm
Posts: 686
Location: Marenisco, MI
Thanks Jim and Rodger. I sure appreciate your setting me straight.
Thanks too Jim for your offer and I will PM you.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Swan 350 Alignment Question
PostPosted: Feb Tue 06, 2018 2:46 am 
Member
User avatar

Joined: Jun Sun 19, 2011 2:31 pm
Posts: 5750
Swan basically used the 350 label as their midline transceiver so there were some very different Swan 350 models over the years. I assume the OP has a non-suffix 350 and the manual that comes with that one does specify using a signal generator for the VFO amplifier alignment (just as they did with the 400 where it made more sense) but the slightly later 500 changes the procedure so that this is done with the internal VFO and I expect by the time the 350C was introduced the manual and procedure was updated..

The 350C is a cosmetically updated version of the original 350 but I think internally it is nearly identical then you have the 350A/B/D which are very different from the early 350/350 C models and the D has the built in digital readout, I have one of those awaiting its turn on the bench. Swan did the same thing with the 500 and 700 series with a lot of variation across the same basic family. I picked up a Swan 700CX, 750CW, and HF-700S from an estate several years ago and although they are related there are a lot of differences in these radios.

To me Swan has a very confusing model name/number system. When I was a new ham I didn't much care for the looks or operation then after playing with the 600 twins I developed an appreciation for them but like Ten Tec every model has a little weirdness designed in.

And on edit, Jim it was very nice of you to provide the documentation to the OP. With a lot of radio projects it feels almost like I am back to doing academic research again because often the literature that you find is most important in pointing out that there is more you need to know (and find). Companies where the principal came out of a larger business often have very good documentation (like National) while others (such as early RME, most CE, and certainly a lot of Swan) show that the organizational founder may be technically astute but not astute in technical writing and often with little appreciation for the importance of it to customers. I really appreciate the great work Tektronix did with the documentation for their 500 and later 7000 series scopes with very useful and user friendly documentation. I am still on the steep part of the learning curve of the new Canon camera I bought 3 weeks ago. The main camera manual is 560 pages in length and there is another 32 page guide just for calibrating the auto focus system. I am convinced all of the necessary information is contained within the system documentation but it is often poorly organized with major omissions in one section requiring you to figure out which related section it is in. And unlike Tektronix which did a very good job of explaining both control function and how/why to use certain setups the Canon manual is very lacking in this applied information in several areas, 4K video in particular, forcing you to then search their corporate site for additional white papers, guides, and videos that provide parts that should have been integrated into the manual. I have been involved in photography for decades and have a good grasp of the "mechanics" of how it works but what I find important but lacking in the Canon manual is exactly what the "personality" is of many of its special functions and features which are very useful BUT the superficial description of how and what they do isn't sufficient for applying them in difficult/complex situations. And whoever created the Canon 1DX M2 documentation must have been paid by the footnote because a lot of critical information that belongs in the main text is instead footnoted as exceptions near the end of a section or chapter. It is times like these I almost wish I hadn't been exposed to good documentation because it points out the stark differences between good and bad.

Rodger WQ9E


Top
 Profile  
 
Post New Topic Post Reply  [ 5 posts ]  Moderator: Sandy

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests



Search for:
Jump to:  
























Privacy Policy :: Powered by phpBB