A customer dropped off this lovely Westy H-223 with original stand for restoration.

It's a crying shame someone cut a hole in the back because otherwise it is pristine. Looks like they used a saw. Why I can't imagine.

Here's a video on the initial checkout: https://youtu.be/VagQF4KD8tM

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52767099173_2aed3def5f_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2ooRbcX)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52766073127_00aeae3635_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2ooKVcv)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52767099448_97282b1ca5_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2ooRbhG)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52767099253_b662d39a05_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2ooRbek)

It has a rather unusual interlock that fits into the top of the chassis.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52767023170_0fd99b5c7c_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2ooQMBy)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52767099328_b0ee3b9c39_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2ooRbfC)

CRT tests good :)
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52767099343_e96ea775a5_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2ooRbfT)

Here's a look at the chassis.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52766073247_f495d3245a_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2ooKVez)

This thing is a real trip underneath. It does not use a flyback! The horizontal yoke windings are driven directly by a pair of 7A5 tubes.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52766610561_a198e037e8_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2ooNEXB)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52766610681_8be3054800_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2ooNEZF)

The 7A5s are in the bottom left above that strange looking transformer.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52767099268_c469855d17_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2ooRbeA)

The HV is generated by an RF supply similar to electrostatic sets.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52767099418_c8c7f178d1_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2ooRbhb)

Is that a 10BP4? How does the CRT test?

Yes, it tests good.

Yes, it tests good.

I got one of those chassis from a fellow electrician. They were cleaning out the old family home, when it was sold. IIRC, the CRT was bad and the cabinet was missing. It did come was a four tube amplifier, that was original. I looked it over , pulled the tubes and dumped the rest! I kept the small amp, :D:
At the time, I looked like a strange design, HV osc, horiz deflection! :scratch2:

I think I recall this set being desirable for the ability to change the scanning rates without affecting EHT crt voltage. Only one of two postwar magnetic deflection sets I recall that did not use flyback EHT, the other had a prewar brute force AC transformer source and one of the first post-war US production sets, don't recall make model.
Germany had at least one flyback EHT set ca 1939, the E-1 as a "peoples" television receiver.
https://www.earlytelevision.org/Etzold/e1-e.html

It would be interesting trying to get it to scan 720P or 1080i.

and so it begins...

Just by chance I was recently given a pile of Sams photofacts that included this set :)

I wonder if Philco was involved with this chassis design since it has their typical rubber corner shock mounts. Also has a couple loctal tubes.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52785694047_408ee3e001_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2oqutPe)

Very solid construction. Handy that they stamped all the control functions into the chassis.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52786644710_c6a003af28_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2oqzmpY)

The 10BP4 and almost all the tubes are Westinghouse branded
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52786697858_88cee760af_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2oqzCdj)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52786697803_dede1b0b90_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2oqzCcn)

Time for a slow, controlled power up.
After about an hour, I got up to 110 volts and was treated with this on the screen.
Very strange to have high voltage with no horizontal deflection. A side effect of the odd design.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52786697658_b23b970dfc_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2oqzC9S)

Probably also why there are some spots burned into the screen.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52785693917_d6c950b25c_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2oqutLZ)

All three 12AU7s were nearly dead. Replacing them rested in a raster of sorts.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52786246851_4aea8b544b_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2oqxj9k)

Adjusting the width freaked the set out a bit.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52786697948_f2177541a4_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2oqzCeS)

A few more weak IF tubes replaced and control tweaking got me this. There is some faint sound and a faint image.
Off to a great start :)
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52786697923_98a6d61cc9_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2oqzCer)\

I think I recall this set being desirable for the ability to change the scanning rates without affecting EHT crt voltage. Only one of two postwar magnetic deflection sets I recall that did not use flyback EHT, the other had a prewar brute force AC transformer source and one of the first post-war US production sets, don't recall make model.
Germany had at least one flyback EHT set ca 1939, the E-1 as a "peoples" television receiver.
https://www.earlytelevision.org/Etzold/e1-e.html

Philco’s 48-700, had a brute force supply. DuMont had a set that was magnetically deflected and had brute force supply, too. I think they had a retrofit kit for it that they sent out to owners.

I think a few Sylvanias had RF power supplies for the HV, and also, DuMont, being DuMont, had a set that derived the HV from an RF style supply that synchronized to the horizontal…

Philco’s 48-700, had a brute force supply. DuMont had a set that was magnetically deflected and had brute force supply, too. I think they had a retrofit kit for it that they sent out to owners.

I think a few Sylvanias had RF power supplies for the HV, and also, DuMont, being DuMont, had a set that derived the HV from an RF style supply that synchronized to the horizontal…
Thanx much for the fascinating response to my post, the Philco is a very interesting set. Like to know more of the others.
Did Philco have a subsequent 7" electrostat model (50-702) with a troublesome oscillator EHT supply? It was Jim, an old friend that mentioned it to me. I mentioned adapting a salvaged Motorola electrostat EHT oscillator coil into it, but he wanted to solve the problem with the original, which at last commo, didn't happen.
https://www.antiqueradios.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=112520

I was told Westinghosue and others didn't use a flyback to avoid paying royalties to RCA.

So...many...caps... These are just some of the 0.1uF bumblebees. Still many to go.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52787285133_0ff856469c_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2oqCCMK)

Barely any signal is making it through the tuner, but I can feed a signal into the IF just fine.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52786832301_a093d9ae15_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2oqAjbi)

I was told Westinghosue and others didn't use a flyback to avoid paying royalties to RCA.
They was some input in the design from Philco. In Riders, there is one model badged Westinghouse, that is identical to the Philco 48-1001. :scratch2:

I was told Westinghosue and others didn't use a flyback to avoid paying royalties to RCA.

How could RCA claim a patent on prior art, their superheterodyne downconversion claim notwithstanding?

How could RCA claim a patent on prior art, their superheterodyne downconversion claim notwithstanding?

I don't know the details but RCA definitely had TV patents.
Look on the back of most TVs and you'll see a label stating "Licensed under US patents of RCA"

You just need to convince the patent office that your application is different enough from any prior work. Plus, RCA was known for being very aggressive and screwing over the little guy.

After fighting with the tuner and trying every channel, I finally got reception on channel #6.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52788236619_441c5336f5_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2oqHvCF)

Time to dig into the tuner.
WOW! What a trip. One of the coolest tuners I've ever seen :beatnik:
A beautiful piece of engineering! :king:

The coils and caps are routed out of PCB type material. Similar to what you'd seen in modern RF electronics.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52788236654_b8871b3595_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2oqHvDh)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52788236704_703cf360eb_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2oqHvE9)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52787452057_c914d55324_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2oqDupK)

and here's the problem :tears:
There are score marks on the adjustments for channels 3 & 4 and the coils are damaged.
Likely a tool slipped while someone was trying to make adjustments.

I'll try to carefully push it back into place and glue down.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52788236629_286555a8cd_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2oqHvCR)

I don't know the details but RCA definitely had TV patents.
Look on the back of most TVs and you'll see a label stating "Licensed under US patents of RCA"



Oddly, my CTC-4 also references patents from N.V Phillips. Be curious what that’s about…


You just need to convince the patent office that your application is different enough from any prior work. Plus, RCA was known for being very aggressive and screwing over the little guy.

RCA was known for screwing over everyone…

I was told Westinghosue and others didn't use a flyback to avoid paying royalties to RCA.

I'm working on a Sparton 4900, which uses a HV supply that is entirely separate from horizontal sweep also. 6SN7 connected as oscillator makes HV using a tubular coil, feeds a 1B3.

The Westinghouse Home Products division in Sunbury was over 70 miles from the nearest TV transmitter, on a flat spot at RR tracks and river north end of town.

WGAL-4 (later 8) was on a tall building in Lancaster. Philadelphia had three more channels but was over 100 miles, so maybe they tested the sets on top of the nearby hills.

That tuner is pretty interesting, I wonder if that distance alone affected their designs?

I was told Westinghosue and others didn't use a flyback to avoid paying royalties to RCA.
That's gratitude for you!
Wasn't it a joint effort by GE and Westinghouse to form Radio Corporation of America! :scratch2:

That's gratitude for you!
Wasn't it a joint effort by GE and Westinghouse to form Radio Corporation of America! :scratch2:
American Marconi, General Electric, Westinghouse, and Wireless Specialty Apparatus Co. formed the Radio Corporation of America (RCA).

We had an old Hallicrafters that had a "similar" tuner. It was a turret design like a Standard Coil tuner except that the strips were actual printed circuit boards with the coils etched on the boards. Never had to clean this tuner. Must have done something right. It was about 50% larger than the Standard Coil tuner.

We had an old Hallicrafters that had a "similar" tuner. It was a turret design like a Standard Coil tuner except that the strips were actual printed circuit boards with the coils etched on the boards. Never had to clean this tuner. Must have done something right. It was about 50% larger than the Standard Coil tuner.
Way back in the early 50"s most smaller cities only had one channel, so the tuner didn't give trouble or need cleaning. :D

I think I recall this set being desirable for the ability to change the scanning rates without affecting EHT crt voltage. Only one of two postwar magnetic deflection sets I recall that did not use flyback EHT, the other had a prewar brute force AC transformer source and one of the first post-war US production sets, don't recall make model.
Germany had at least one flyback EHT set ca 1939, the E-1 as a "peoples" television receiver.
https://www.earlytelevision.org/Etzold/e1-e.html

Very cool!
And some modern example exists, also: some hi-end and semi-hi-end monitor employed this same technique just for the multiscan. One example, the Sony F-99 chassis employs this.

It would be interesting trying to get it to scan 720P or 1080i.

I think the same just when I read about... Tempting for the thinkerer... but very scary for owners, considering the rarity of these sets.
H circuits needs to be healty, since needs to reach 31500Hz just for 480p...

Oddly, my CTC-4 also references patents from N.V Phillips. Be curious what that’s about…



RCA was known for screwing over everyone…
I read a pate

I read a pate

I didn't finish the entry!
Anyway, this what I was going to enter!
I read a patent notice label on an RCA portable TV, mid 50's model. It mentioned, Motorola Inc. It must've meant the intercarrier sound IF.
RCA fought that for possibly 3 or 4 years of their early TV production. :sigh:

I carefully pushed the mangled coil back into shape and glued it down.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52793622423_c4549ddc65_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2orc7Dn)

Success! I can now receive on both channels 3 & 4.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52793416414_e1e0b3ccb7_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2orb4pu)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52793569430_b24cd101ee_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2orbQTG)

Working on replacing the two multi-section twist locs now.
Even though they used twist-locs, there are existing mounting holes with the standing hole spacing for phenolic insulation wafers.
Perfect opportunity to use adapt-a-caps.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52798030739_d8f2dd0cf6_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2orzH5P)

Ooops, slightly melted the wire insulation in a few spots :o
One down, one to go.

BTW those two 12K resistors in parallel is how it was originally built and shown on the schematic. Two 12K, 1W in parallel
I'm thinking 5.6K or 6.8K wasn't close enough?
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52798181030_0c8db8a96d_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2orAtL3)

"BTW those two 12K resistors in parallel is how it was originally built and shown on the schematic. Two 12K, 1W in parallel
I'm thinking 5.6K or 6.8K wasn't close enough?"

Can you post the circuit? If the original resistors were 10% or 20% tolerance, there wouldn't be much advantage in using two for a nominal intermediate value. More likely they had 1 watt components available cheaper than small quantities of 2 watt - but that could depend on the particular circuit.

https://www.earlytelevision.org/pdf/westinghouse_h223_rider_3.pdf

Series dropping resistor for screen grids and DC restorer B plus - no reason for precision that I can see. I note there is only one 2 watt resistor in the bill of materials - cathode bias for the horizontal output. There are a few higher wattage wire-wounds, but all the other composition resistors are 1/2 watt or 1 watt.

The peculiar thing is that there is only 1/6 watt dissipated in each of those two 1-watt resistors (see Fig. 41). Maybe this was to keep a low temperature rise and prevent the value from drifting - I'm thinking the actual DC restorer B plus is not critical because brightness control setting takes care of it; unless it drifts, requiring readjustment of brightness. You could test this theory by connecting/disconnecting a 100k or so resistor across these two and see if the black level changes.
See Fig. 30, where it appears to be so.

Another thought - I wonder how well the DC restoration tracks with line voltage changes.

Another Interesting fun fact, Philo Farnsworth (the man behind the Capehart and Farnsworth Radio and TV Company) actually was a pioneer in early TV manufacturing and had many patents in TV development which RCA ripped off from him, and when Philo tried to sue RCA for patent infringment they took him for a ride and drove him into bankruptcy.

So the majority of those Patent Nos. refrenced to on the back of these TVs that are claimed by RCA are actually Farnsworth Patents NOT RCA Patents. :scratch2: :nono:

Another Interesting fun fact, Philo Farnsworth (the man behind the Capehart and Farnsworth Radio and TV Company) actually was a pioneer in early TV manufacturing and had many patents in TV development which RCA ripped off from him, and when Philo tried to sue RCA for patent infringment they took him for a ride and drove him into bankruptcy.

So the majority of those Patent Nos. refrenced to on the back of these TVs that are claimed by RCA are actually Farnsworth Patents NOT RCA Patents. :scratch2: :nono:
"We don't pay royalties, we collect them".
Popularly attributed to David Sarnoff/RCA.

Another Interesting fun fact, Philo Farnsworth (the man behind the Capehart and Farnsworth Radio and TV Company) actually was a pioneer in early TV manufacturing and had many patents in TV development which RCA ripped off from him, and when Philo tried to sue RCA for patent infringment they took him for a ride and drove him into bankruptcy.

So the majority of those Patent Nos. refrenced to on the back of these TVs that are claimed by RCA are actually Farnsworth Patents NOT RCA Patents. :scratch2: :nono:

Farnsworth was only behind the Farnsworth Company.

Capehart was a separate company known for luxury phonograph and Jukebox equipment. Their turnover changer that started as a a jukebox mechanism became the standard for premium home audio both in the high end consoles Capehart sold (which with add on remotes and amps became whole home radio and music systems) and paired with other high-end radios like E. H. Scott.

The 2 companies later merged since Capehart wanted into emerging Television Tech and Farnsworth needed the backing of a financially solid company to deal with RCAs nonsense.

You guys have the timeline and facts a bit off. Philo goes back much further. He filed his patents in the 20s and had his battle with RCA in the 30s. He won in 1938 with RCA agreeing to pay royalties.

Then the war broke out and production was halted. Unfortunately for Philco, by the time the war was over and TV resumed, his patent had expired.

Farnsworth Television and Radio Corp was based in Fort Wayne and operated from 1938 to 1951. It was bought out by ITT in '51.

Farnsworth bought Capehart in 1938 using the money he won from RCA.

Legend has it the RCA lawyer was crying when he was signing the settlement papers. Probably because he knew Sarnoff was pissed.

How many times did someone take on RCA and win?

You guys have the timeline and facts a bit off. Philo goes back much further. He filed his patents in the 20s and had his battle with RCA in the 30s. He won in 1938 with RCA agreeing to pay royalties.

Then the war broke out and production was halted. Unfortunately for Philco, by the time the war was over and TV resumed, his patent had expired.

Farnsworth Television and Radio Corp was based in Fort Wayne and operated from 1938 to 1951. It was bought out by ITT in '51.

Farnsworth bought Capehart in 1938 using the money he won from RCA.

Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that Farnsworth was the one who originally designed the technology that made TV as we know it now possible and that RCA did indeed try to take Farnsworth for a ride when it comes to trying to get his patents which he did as you said eventually win out in court over RCA but then by the time it was all said and done his patents ran out which basically meant that RCA could then take those patents and claim them for themselves (even though they really werent theirs to begin with)
hence why RCA was considered a dirty operator for many years was because they basically held a monopoly over the patents for many various electronics technologies including ones that weren't originally theirs to begin with, which is why if you look up some of the patent numbers on the back of many old RCA and RCA Clone/licensed TVs you'll see that they are actually patents originally assigned to Philo Farnsworth and then in small print under the original patent assignee is the words "reassigned to RCA".

Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that Farnsworth was the one who originally designed the technology that made TV as we know it now possible .

Not really. That was Vladimir Zworkin. There really was one absolutely key invention, which was the iconoscope camera. This was the first device that stored up information from photons no matter when they arrived, at every spot
on the picture. Even today they make really good pictures in bright sunlight, for example, in a camera made by a guy in Japan using a solid state preamp.

In broad daylight even my WWII bomber camera make quite OK pictures.

Not really. That was Vladimir Zworkin. There really was one absolutely key invention, which was the iconoscope camera. This was the first device that stored up information from photons no matter when they arrived, at every spot on the picture. Even today they make really good pictures in bright sunlight, for example, in a camera made by a guy in Japan using a solid state preamp.

In broad daylight even my WWII bomber camera make quite OK pictures.

This is a somewhat condensed version of the technical issues of sensitivity. The iconoscope was only 5 or 10 percent as sensitive as a tube should be that stored charge for a full field. This was because of the large secondary emission of charge due to the high-velocity scanning beam. The sensitivity could be increased about 10 times by adding an electron image section in front of the scanned plate. This was done successfully in the "Super Emitron" (image iconoscope) used in Europe. RCA was well aware if this, but didn't use it due to interference of Farnsworth's patents for an image section. It is a blatant example of how RCA's business policies sometimes held back technology instead of advancing it. RCA eventually did use an image section and combined it with low-velocity scanning in the even more sensitive image orthicon, which achieved 100% storage efficiency.

old_tv_nut: well, yes, what you say is important for the history.

But the important thing is being first to get a great idea, get it to work even
a little, and then get it to market.

For example, the Plumbicon works great, but it was an incremental idea.
And it was the trailing edge.

Comb filters were great, but trailing edge.

Digital was a great idea for great pictures. But its big deal is allowing
stuffing 8 channels of utter crap into the space on one, not quality for that one.

I finished recapping the power supply.
That took care of the bends.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52802865175_6e96667cd7_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2os1uca)

I think all that's left is tweaking the sound and picture centering/linearity.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52802916028_84f994e48f_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2os1KiW)

The contrast control in this set is really odd. They feed the output of the detector from the back of the set to the front through coax, use a potentiometer to vary the level, and run another coax line back to the video amp.

That's what the tube is running down the middle.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52766610561_a198e037e8_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2ooNEXB)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52801922927_2a63fbf774_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2orVE6v)

Wouldn't it be much easier to just vary the bias/gain on the amp?

The other way to adjust contrast would be with a variable resistor in the cathode of the video output. But here they needed a full AC bypass (1000 microfarads) to make the video output have enough gain at maximum contrast - so varying the cathode resistor would only change the DC bias and not affect the contrast significantly. So why not have a variable cathode resistor that goes to zero for max contrast? Because it would result in too much sensitivity of bias to video output tube variations.

How about varying the gain of the video output by varying the bias? The problem is that varying gain by changing tube bias only works well when the signal swing is relatively small compared to the bias voltage, as is the case in IF AGC or color level control based on burst level. If the signal itself is large, it runs from the low-gain region of the tube characteristic to the high gain region, so resulting in differential gain, which means non-linear amplification.

I finally finished this set last week. Here are some final photos of it assembled and playing well. The controls take some getting used to, but once it's dialed in, the performance is quite good.

What a strange set :)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53319417461_7725987590_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2peDXc4)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53319771174_031a1ea291_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2peFLky)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53319771129_27fb06e451_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2peFLjM)

In a word, "Nice".