[morzh]

Ron

Thanks, it helps.

Now to re-iterate what I wanted to ask in Q1. (I will just copy the question from the first post)

Q1. the schematic shows 250k resistor #33 connected to the "H" terminal of the bias wirewound resistor #38. The "J" terminal has #47 resistor of 13k going to it and it is the only one there.
In my chassis (I did verify it is what I think it is, all the tubes line-up is correct) both the 250K resistor #33 (in my case I think it is 240k by the colors) and the 13K #47 (the latter is connected by a long wire and is at the opposite side of the chassis) resistor are soldered to the "J" terminal.
The "H" terminal is empty. Better yet it looks like it has never has been soldered to, factory clean, and the "J" terminal soldering looks factory also.

Does anyone know if there are factory variations with 90 2x45 chassis?

Q3. The 4990 mica cap. Logic dictates that it is a typo, yes, and both values should be the same. You list the 350pF (0.00035uF). Now Chuck's website lists the same capacitor as 35pF.

Part No. Capacity mmf. (pf.) Type Color Code
4990 35 2 or 3 Green yellow

http://www.philcorepairbench.com/micacap.htm

So, are both of them 350pF or 35pF? The ultimate answer would be "this value comes from the chassis", as the documentation, as we see often, contains typos.

I think it will benefit all of us if we could figure this out; if Chuck's info is incorrect he could use the correct info then.

Q5.1. (in addition to the Q5): The underbelly diagram shows that #46 cap as a backelite block cap, which is absent in my chassis. The part number 5215 however, according to the same Chuck's information on micas, lists the cap as a mica of 1000pF.

http://www.philcorepairbench.com/micacap.htm

Part No. Capacity mmf. (pf.) Type Color Code
5215 1,000 3 Green White

This is why I was asking about the underbelly photos, if anyone has them for the 2x45 chassis.

In any case, I think a micamold here is unnecessary as this cap can be a simple film cap, it is not any longer a tuned circuit. What do you think?


Again, thanks.