>
>> It is a mistake to apply a commercial broadcast economic model to a ham
>> radio station.
>
>I don't disagree at all with this. The point I was trying - however
>ineptly - to make is that solid state technology requires a different
>approach to traditional tube design.
>
** The main difference being that combiners are the norm with
solid-state due to the practical limit of a few hundred watts per module.
Also, for the same number of watts of RF out, due to more waste heat
byproduct being available with solid-state, one can heat a bigger
swimming pool than with an electron-tube/valve linear amplifier.
>
>> A ham is just some guy transmitting for fun infrequently out of his house
>> (comparatively speaking, with phone patches, traffic, and other service
>work
>> the exception). He is mostly concerned with the up-front one-time cost
>> since he isn't making money on his station. For hams, tubes continue to
>> offer the best watt/<unit of currency> value today. The operating costs
>of
>> tubes are not that punishing for a ham unless he's running his amp on the
>> air for hours every day (I wonder what that's like--I should live so long
>to
>> find out). This may all certainly change in the near future however.
>
>Again, I don't disagree. But, things are changing. Had surplus Russian tubes
>not arrived on the scene and reduced the cost of buying big tubes, the
>economics would have changed even more!It's now possible to build PAs in the
>500 - 600 watt class for the same sort of cost, and similar, or better
>performance as traditional tube amplifiers. Buying new parts in small
>quantities, the cost is more-or-less competitive with tubes.
>
>73
>
>Chris
>GW4DGU
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Amps mailing list
>Amps@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
>
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|