I checked the crystal filter module, and found that on my radio it's soldered in
- not on a socket. It is part of the 'sideband generator' board, apparently.
Anyway, I wiggled it and found no difference. I unfortunately loosened a trace
on the board it solders into. Moral: don't push on the SSB filter module when
reinstalling the sideband generator board into the radio.
The picture in the manual shows an 8-crystal arrangement, but my radio has 10
crystals in the filter 'module'. Yet, it only has 4 leads: In, Out, and (2)
grounds. Design change somewhere along the way? I don't see how this module
could be both the (wide) SSB and narrow CW filter, unless there's a pair of
hidden leads in there somewhere.
I haven't found any loose modules in the radio so far; all seem to be pretty
solidly screwed down. I did have some intermittent weird stuff in the digital
display; had that all apart, and cleaned the gobs of flux off. (Pretty bad
soldering job! I work at an aerospace avionics manufacturer, and we have to be
pretty fussy about soldering.) The counter chip in that seemed to have some low
temp problems. However, after I shocked the thing a couple of times with some
circuit cooler, it seemed to get better. Go figure.
One thing that puzzles me is this: where is the CW filter located? I think I
have one, since I get noticeably sharper reception (but equal S-readings if
tuned accurately) on 'CW-N' mode than on 'CW-W' mode (or whatever the labels
are). The manual I bought from TT calls the CW filter 'Model 245', but the page
describing it was left out of the manual. Do you know where it is installed?
Replaced the protection diodes, for whatever that's worth. Didn't help
reception. I think I'll try replacing the RF amp mosfet, for whatever that's
worth. Might help, even though the one in there now does appear to be working.
Can't be too big an expense.
Have you done a PTO rebuild kit? I went through that (about a half-a-day job!),
and found it helped a lot - - - - but. The dial still has a very slight
'stickyness' to the feel, not quite as smooth as I'd like. It seemed that the
PTO tension setting (adjusted by the spacers on the back of the mechanism) was a
compromise between smooth operation, and sufficient force to operate the dial
cord mechanism. I thought I did everything the way the TT directions said. Had
a tough time getting the old grease out of the plastic threaded piece.
John, N0JS
____________________Reply Separator____________________
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [TenTec] 'New' Triton IV / 540 questions/comments
Author: "Winston F. Jones" <winjones@ix.netcom.com>
To: <tentec@contesting.com>
Date: 3/8/00 6:17 PM
Hi John,
I bought a Triton IV a few years ago really cheap. The seller told me it
worked sometimes and sometimes not. I opened it up and poked around. I found
that the circuit board with the crystal sideband filter, which plugs in on
the top chassis, was loose. Simply pushing down on it cured the problem. I
ended up with a good working Triton IV for half the normal price. I don't
know if it'd help in your case, but I think it'd be worth a trial. Just
slide off the top cover and you'll see the filter near the center of the
set. Hope it helps.
73, Winston K4CWQ
From: <streyle_john@si.com>
To: <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 08:18 AM
Subject: Re[2]: [TenTec] 'New' Triton IV / 540 questions/comments
>
>
>
> ____________________Reply Separator____________________
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] 'New' Triton IV / 540 questions/comments
> Author: "Michael O. Hyder" <N4NT@charter.net>
To: <tentec@contesting.com>
> Date: 3/4/00 12:33 PM
>
> See Below . . .
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <streyle_john@si.com>
> To: <tentec@contesting.com>
> Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2000 10:31 AM
> Subject: [TenTec] 'New' Triton IV / 540 questions/comments
>
>
>
> > 2nd: The receiver seems kinda weak on receive - the calibrator doesn't
even
> > move the s-meter. Is the RF amp mosfet the likely cause? I've been
thru most
> > of the alignment, which helped a bit; but not enough. TT service told
me over
> > the phone that either the mosfet, or the protection diodes were
typically the
> > problem. (Even at that, I've been able to work some decent DX on 80 &
40 CW,
> > with just an inverted V)
>
> ** There is a slide switch on the back panel which switches the receiver
> antenna between transceive and a separate receive antenna jack on the rear
> panel. Make sure this switch is in the correct position -- then wiggle it
> back and forth enough times to clean its contacts. Those things are
> notorious for getting dirty.
>
> ** If that doesn't work, then look on the schematic for back-to-back
diodes
> across the receiver circuitry's antenna input. These diodes are present
to
> protect the receiver from voltage spikes, but sometimes the way they
protect
> it is to short out, which makes the receiver seem pretty near dead. While
> you are in there, replace the diodes in the ALC detection circuitry. If
> they go bad, funky stuff can happen on transmit.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> --------
> I tried the slide switch on the back panel; no improvement on receive. I
lifted
> one end of both of the back-to-back receiver protection diodes; no
improvement
> on receive. Next, I tried feeding a signal into the input of the TX-RX
mixer,
> and set the signal generator level to produce an 'S9' reading. I then
moved the
> signal generator to the antenna jack, and got an 'S9 + 15' reading.
> Apparently, this means the RF amp stage is working properly, according to
what
> TT service told me on the phone.
>
> I've already tweaked the alignment on the RF amp, mixer(s), and IF. It's
> probably not perfect, but should be pretty close.
>
> Is this normal operation for this radio, to show S0 reading on 80 meters?
(with
> only normal background noise?) I'd expect a couple S-units of normal
'crud'
> there. I'm using an inverted V for an antenna.
>
> Incidentally, while I was inside the radio, I took the cover off the VFO
> pre-mixer. I noticed an intermittent while loosening the screws.
Apparently,
> the tall coil in there was interfering with the cover, and has produced a
solder
> fracture or broken trace on that board. (Okay, maybe my 'alignment'
efforts also
> played a part.) I plan to pull that board (pain!) and resolder; but also,
I plan
> to trim that coil form off a little bit - so it won't hit the cover. Has
anyone
> else had this experience?
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> ---------
>
> ** If you don't have the OVP, GET IT. Ten-Tec had them recently for $15
> plus $3 shipping.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> ---------
> Thanks for the tip - I will definitely pursue this soon.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> ---------
> > Thanks in advance
>
> > John Streyle
> > N0JS
>
> ** Welcome, de Mike N4NT@charter.net
>
>
> --
> FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/tentecfaq.htm
> Submissions: tentec@contesting.com
> Administrative requests: tentec-REQUEST@contesting.com
> Problems: owner-tentec@contesting.com
> Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
>
Received: from lucy.si.com ([126.1.0.69]) by smtpgwy.si.com with SMTP
(IMA Internet Exchange 3.13) id 000121EF; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 18:11:55 -0500
Received: from checkers.si.com (checkers.si.com [126.1.8.254])
by lucy.si.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA00035
for <streyle_john@si.com>; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 18:13:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from challenger.si.com (unverified) by checkers.si.com
(Content Technologies SMTPRS 2.0.15) with SMTP id <B0000964624@checkers.si.com>
for <streyle_john@si.com>;
Wed, 08 Mar 2000 18:16:12 -0500
Received: by challenger.si.com; id SAA02004; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 18:13:22 -0500
(EST)
Received: from nodnsquery(207.69.229.19) by challenger.si.com via smap (V5.5)
id xma001999; Wed, 8 Mar 00 18:13:08 -0500
Received: from winstonj (user-38lcjrn.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.79.119])
by fb01.eng00.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA03691
for <streyle_john@si.com>; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 18:13:05 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <008501bf8954$7f5ca760$774f56d1@winstonj>
From: "Winston F. Jones" <winjones@ix.netcom.com>
To: <streyle_john@si.com>
References: <00010E69.C21188@si.com>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [TenTec] 'New' Triton IV / 540 questions/comments
To: <tentec@contesting.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 18:17:38 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Content-Type: text/plain;
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/tentecfaq.htm
Submissions: tentec@contesting.com
Administrative requests: tentec-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-tentec@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|