Unpotted Peerless 16309 OPT from Heath W5m - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Amplifiers > Tubes / Valves

Tubes / Valves All about our sweet vacuum tubes :) Threads about Musical Instrument Amps of all kinds should be in the Instruments & Amps forum

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 21st April 2008, 01:49 AM   #1
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Default Unpotted Peerless 16309 OPT from Heath W5m

I unpotted one of my broken Peerless 16309 OPTs. The smaller of the two OPTs seen in the W-5m. See the attached pictures.

A few observations:

1. The transformer core is relatively tiny for a 20watt amplifier. 3"x2.5"x1.5" . A lot of these OPTs fail and I wonder if it is a thermal problem and the isulation just gives out due to heat. Today's superior insulation and better insulated magnet wire would probably improve the reliability immensely.

2. There is a compensation cap between the plate and UL tap on both sides of the primary. It's an Aerovox branded one and looks like a mica. I'll measure one eventually. Micas are pretty stable and should be close to the original value.

3. near the center of the stack there are what looks like many nickel laminations between the M6 ones. The other, larger Peerless 16458 opt from the W-5m does not have these nickel lams.

I'd like to get these rewound. Haven't got around to budgeting for it yet...

Click the image to open in full size.
Click the image to open in full size.
Click the image to open in full size.
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st April 2008, 02:09 AM   #2
diyAudio Member
 
tubewade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Interesting. I've got a dead one but never got around to dismantling it for inspection. Nice to see what's inside.
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st April 2008, 08:45 PM   #3
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
That would be an inch and half stack of 1" center leg E-I scrappless. The caps are an interesting additions; the S265Q and S271S I had Heyboer take down did not have such things. The S271S did have the Ni in about the same thickness on a thicker stack. Until I saw it myself, I had no idea of its existence; nobody making them today, regardless of the 'exactly to print' claims ever thought to mention them.

Also, the rumour started about the demise of Heyboer's winding of OPT's they've been hired to unwind and clone is greatly exagerated...
cheers,
Douglas
__________________
the Tnuctipun will return
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd April 2008, 03:13 AM   #4
diyAudio Member
 
MQracing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Hi Walker:

Don't let core size in isolation fool you or form the basis of "goodness".

What you really also need to know is how many pri turns (and the volts across these turns) are energizing that core and at what lowest frequency.

So that a smaller core with a larger number of pri turns may have a lower flux density than a larger core with fewer pri turns.

And--- the smaller (but equal as above) core may have some other optimalities due to it's size.

MSL
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd April 2008, 01:29 PM   #5
pjanda1 is offline pjanda1  United States
diyAudio Member
 
pjanda1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Boulder, CO
Interestingly, if you didn't have the the nickel laminations, those would be the spitting image of the OPTs in my Scott 222B (which I assume are Stancor). Not that I've seen many OPTs in my time, but the laminations look the same and the size is right (if you add 1/4" for the nickel). The next version of the Scott had very different looking OPTs (bigger but sloppier looking lams).

thanks for the pics,

pj
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd April 2008, 03:56 PM   #6
kevinkr is offline kevinkr  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
kevinkr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Blog Entries: 6
Quote:
Originally posted by pjanda1
Interestingly, if you didn't have the the nickel laminations, those would be the spitting image of the OPTs in my Scott 222B (which I assume are Stancor). Not that I've seen many OPTs in my time, but the laminations look the same and the size is right (if you add 1/4" for the nickel). The next version of the Scott had very different looking OPTs (bigger but sloppier looking lams).

thanks for the pics,

pj
Scott actually manufactured their output and power transformers in house, this from many former employees of Scott who I have met over the years. (I lived next town over from Maynard during most of the 1990s - you would never guess they had been there.. )
__________________
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th April 2008, 10:01 PM   #7
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Sorry to hijack, but I've been sitting on an old Heathkit W-5M that I was planning on turning into a Root666 guitar amp (Dr. Z Route 66 clone) but a '73 Ampeg B-15S just caught my eye (and ears) and I am cleaning house to raise the funds.

I believe the iron to be good (Peerless 16458 OT!) but the electrolytics are shot (I'm guessing), the power tubes were lifeless and have been discarded (I think the Rectifier is still good and the 12AU7s were fine), and there is no pre-amp with it. It's not the prettiest belle at the ball, but I've seen the output tranny alone go for $200 and up on the 'Bay. I can email pics to those that are interested. PM me with questions.

Help me get my dream bass amp...

Thanks,
Roy
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st December 2008, 08:15 PM   #8
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Default Peerless 16309 transformers

Hello Walker:

How did the Peerless rebuild turn out? I'm getting ready to un-pot a bad one myself. How did you do it without destroying the finish on the can? I don't know yet if I'm going to have the original rewound or have a new one made.

If you need a brand new power transformer for the KT-66 equipped W-5M use Pacific Transformer (PAC TRAN) 18125A. It is identical in size and performance to the original. I know because they designed it for me from a working original. Consequently, you won't need to pay the NRE cost.

thanks for the thread,

brian
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th January 2009, 11:59 AM   #9
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
hey Walker,
I've worked with a few amp restorers in these parts and our conclusion to the toasty 16309 problem is to replace it with the tougher S265Q. With Heyboer doing the winding, we also have the opportunity to put in the U-L taps in the 40%( or any 10% increment for that matter) location. It has two separate secondaries so either 8 and 16 Ohms are available, or in parallel for 4 w/o any re-configuring. No more worry about a marginal OPT.
cheers,
Douglas
__________________
the Tnuctipun will return
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th January 2009, 04:40 PM   #10
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Default Re: Peerless 16309 transformers

Quote:
Originally posted by Brian Connolly
Hello Walker:

How did the Peerless rebuild turn out? I'm getting ready to un-pot a bad one myself. How did you do it without destroying the finish on the can? I don't know yet if I'm going to have the original rewound or have a new one made.

If you need a brand new power transformer for the KT-66 equipped W-5M use Pacific Transformer (PAC TRAN) 18125A. It is identical in size and performance to the original. I know because they designed it for me from a working original. Consequently, you won't need to pay the NRE cost.

thanks for the thread,

brian
Hi Brian,

After corresponding with a "well known transformer house", we decided it probably wasn't worth the effort (or cost) to have these 16309's rewound since the we would need to preserve the nickel laminations since they are so hard to get. The problem is that the laminations might get bent in the process.

It's not impossible, but with the availability of really good (proven) transformers from the same source, the process of getting these rewound would be basically for curiosity's sake.

If somebody's willing to share the cost with me of getting the transformer unwound and the specs recorded, send me a PM. I might still be interested in going this route since I still have several of these dead 16309's.

I unpotted mine by putting them in a conventional oven set just above the boiling point of water. I laid the transformer down on a wet towel to minimize hot spots and checked the tar for softness. At some point I was able to pull out the core by tugging on the leads. You don't want to completely liquify the tar and stink up your kitchen. You want to heat it just enough so the bond that the tar makes with the potting can is broken.

I let the unpotted core cool and froze the thing solid in the freezer so I could easily chip off the tar to expose the core. If i could get the encased core colder with say a liquid N2 bath, I could probably shatter most of the tar off cleanly with a hard blow from a plastic mallet. But I needed to chip at it since the tar was still a bit soft.

Walker
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why buy a Heath IP-17 HV Supply? jackinnj Everything Else 1 19th January 2007 04:31 PM
Heath Kit W5M mono blocks Jed Swap Meet 2 12th January 2007 03:37 AM
Heath Distortion Measurement Set HD-1 TubesRulz Tubes / Valves 0 28th March 2005 07:44 PM
Heath Zenith Hand Held Frequency Counter Coulomb Swap Meet 3 2nd March 2005 09:05 PM
Heath and Dyna schematics online ppl Solid State 0 14th December 2002 10:22 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:52 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2