Excellent observation! I have been gathering information on
Russian tubes for a relatively short amount of time; during this
period, I've seen many "comparisons" between and amongst the
Russian tubes and the Eimacs, RCAs, GEs, Burles, etc., of the
world. I've OFTEN wondered how on earth folks arrived at their
conclusions regarding "equivalency" - HI!!
To me, "equivalent" means one can substitute one for another,
with little or no electrical or mechanical change required.
That's the way we thought of it with respect to the receiving
tubes of yore - HI! Once I started seeing these "equivalents"
listed for the Russian tubes, I figured maybe the power transmit
tube group had a different way of evaluating such.
Personally, I don't pay much attention to "equivalents" - I merely
attempt to collect the circuit parameter and mechanical installation
information necessary to make a given tube function in a given
application. A couple of examples:
(1) Correct me if I'm wrong, but the GU-74B isn't simply a 4CX800
"equivalent' - I get the impression from folks who use them that
they are significantly tougher than a classic, western 4CX800.
(2) Additionally, after listening to the results achieved, one
gets the impression that a GS-35 really has no peer, certainly
not the 8877 which "dies" at 250MHz!! Will a single 8877 do
4000W output on 2m, or 2500W output on 70cm, reliably and over
time, like a single GS-35B? I guess I doubt it!!
Food for thought! A very interesting subject for me - I would
welcome any and all comments, data, observations, personal "war-stories",
etc., regarding same!!
73, Paul ND2X
>--- Original Message ---
>From: "Ian White, G3SEK" <G3SEK@ifwtech.com>
>Date: 7/20/01 3:35:44 AM
>Paul Hewitt wrote:
>>There are, (were?) two versions, one with the
>>smaller anode cooler diameter.
>Aren't we looking at the wrong end of the elephant? The 4CX1600
>users know about is a pin-based tube. The GS23B is the coaxial-based
>4CX1600U and has totally different electrical characteristics...
>other words, it's a whole 'nother tube.
>>> SO, I'm not sure what controversy might
>>> be growing here - it makes no sense to
>>> me that a 4CX1600 would have an anode
>>> cooler with a diameter smaller than 3.34+
>>> Thanks for bringing your concerns up!
>>> 73, Paul ND2X/5
>>FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/amps
>>Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
>73 from Ian G3SEK Editor, 'The VHF/UHF DX Book'
> 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom
>FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/amps
>Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/amps
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com