Ah yes.  I knew several people who used a Globe chief.

I started out using a Harvey-Wells Bandmaster as a Novice; I tuned it
listening to the power supply although I eventually intended to hook up a
meter-reading circuit.  Then I used a DX-100 with a "comparator" -- the
device I described wherein one matched pitches to determine meter reading.
Used a NC-300 National receiver.  Then I wend to the Drake TR-4
transceiver which I still have.  No HF gear on the air at the moment as I
live in an apartment and haven't figured out how to set up an antenna that
might be worth anything, let alone a decent ground on the bands I'm
interested in.  Would love to get back into it, though.

Mike Freeman < K 7 U I J >
"All men tend to become that which they oppose." - Laurence van der Post

On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Henry Brugsch wrote:

> Hi Mike, you brought back some great memories. My first rig was a WRL
> Globechief 90a. I used to tune this using the power supply hum. When the
> meter just tickeled the far side, I knew |I was on 200 mills that needed for
> max output.
> This was back in 1959. I used that rig for some 15 years, or so.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike Freeman" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 2:45 PM
> Subject: Re: Tuning an antenna
>
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > First, tube amplifiers hat "pi networks" to match them to the antenna.
> > Such a network could be designed to match a far wider range of SWR than
> > most transmitters and amplifiers can tolerate now (they're now
> > broad-banded and *expect* a narrow range of SWR).
> >
> > Second, there were meter-reading devices for the blind which could allow
> > us to tune just as accurately (if not more so) than could a sighted
> > person.  These were based upon two designs.  One was a Wheatstone bridge
> > with a current-interrupting mechanism and resistor with audio amplifier
> > across it so that when the bridge legs were unbalanced, one heard a
> > tone; when the legs were balanced, no tone was heard.  The potentiometer
> > in one of the legs was brought out to a braille scale and pointer so
> > that one could either determine the reading by adjusting for null noise
> > or adjust controls to match a wanted reading by tuning for a null.  The
> > second way was by using a voltage-sensitive oscillator (larger voltage,
> > higher pitch) and calibrating against a known voltage source with two
> > separate inputs which could be switched -- one across the meter in
> > question and the other going, again, to a potentiometer brought out to a
> > calibrated touch-readable scale.  One either tuned for lowest pitch
> > (tuning an amplifier for resonance) or highest pitch (maximizing output)
> > and one could determine the meter reading by matching the pitch with
> > that on the braille scale.  It should be noted that most latter-day SSB
> > tube amplifiers (either linears or finals on a transmitter) were running
> > Class B so that one could just tune for max output and be fine.
> >
> > But to the SWR.  These same meter-reading designs could be made to serve
> > to read SWR meters.  If one had a "match box", one could put raised
> > scales on the dials and either match the antenna(s) oneself using these
> > audible meters or have a sighted person do it and then one could write
> > down what the scales read for band and frequency range.
> >
> > And, then as now, there were automatic antenna tuners -- great motorized
> > contraptions.  I wish I had one.
> >
> > You could also use things like power-supply hum to adjust a final
> > amplifier and could adjust AM audio output by listening to the
> > modulation transformer.  You could balance out the carrier on an SSB
> > transmitter by using a transistor radio tuned to a subharmonic of the
> > signal.  I knew a guy who tuned his SWAN 350 using a transistor radio.
> >
> > In other words, things didn't *have* to talk and ingenuity was the name
> > of the game.  And there were crystal calibrators to determine 100 kHz
> > points (or down to 10kHz for some calibrators) and one could gestimate
> > between these points.  For instance, on a Drake TR-4, each revolution of
> > the tuning knob (which had a raised dot on the skirt) was 25kHz.  We
> > actually got pretty good at finding frequency.
> >
> > Bottom line:  where there was a will, there was a way and, frankly, I
> > think rigs were easier to operate forty years ago than they are now.
> >
> > Mike Freeman < K 7 U I J >
> > "All men tend to become that which they oppose." - Laurence van der Post
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Michael Ryan" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 1:22 AM
> > Subject: Tuning an antenna
> >
> >
> > > Hi fokes:
> > >
> > > Just have a question regarding blind ham tuning an antenna in the
> > early days.
> > > How was it accomplished? I'm pretty sure there were no talking SWR
> > Meters
> > > or automatic antenna tuners.
> > > Did sited fokes build antennas for the blind ham for the exact band
> > and
> > > then was a "let her writ" attitude adapted due to the tubes in the
> > > transceiver?
> > >
> > > Thanks and 73:
> > > Michael VO1RYN
> > >
> > >
>