Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+3CPX\s+vs\s+3CX\s+tubes\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+3CPX\s+vs\s+3CX\s+tubes\s*$/: 7 ]

Total 7 documents matching your query.

1. [Amps] 3CPX vs 3CX tubes (score: 1): Author: Gudguyham@aol.com; Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 22:35:52 EDT; Hi, Does anyone know with any certainty the difference between a 3CPX and a 3CX tube? Checking the Eimac data in reference to a 3CPX800A7 vs a 3CX800A7 it shows that a 3CX800A7 and a 3CPX800A7 both c; /archives//html/Amps/2006-10/msg00218.html (6,592 bytes)
2. Re: [Amps] 3CPX vs 3CX tubes (score: 1): Author: "Mike Krzystyniak K9MK" <k9mk@flash.net>; Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 22:05:51 -0500; I have tried 3CPX800's in my Henry 2002A and 2004A amps. The tube is physically taller than the standard tube by about a tenth of an inch. So the teflon chimney to exhaust port that is part of the ta; /archives//html/Amps/2006-10/msg00220.html (8,057 bytes)
3. Re: [Amps] 3CPX vs 3CX tubes (score: 1): Author: Steve Thompson <g8gsq@eltac.co.uk>; Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 07:31:41 +0100; We ran a 3CPX1500 in a 2m contest station for 15 years or so - it gave excellent linearity. Steve _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.co; /archives//html/Amps/2006-10/msg00221.html (7,191 bytes)
4. Re: [Amps] 3CPX vs 3CX tubes (score: 1): Author: Karl-Arne Markström <sm0aom@telia.com>; Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 08:58:15 +0200; In the mid 80's the use of the 3CPX1500A7 in linear amplifier service was investigated in connection of "re-tubing" a commercial MF/HF amplifier. The outcome was that it would have permitted higher p; /archives//html/Amps/2006-10/msg00222.html (9,429 bytes)
5. Re: [Amps] 3CPX vs 3CX tubes (score: 1): Author: Gudguyham@aol.com; Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 06:52:54 EDT; This was in the "pre Russian tube" era, otherwise one or more GS35's or GU84's probably would have been used. 73/ Karl-Arne SM0AOM I have used the GS-35B a couple of times, the tube is rugged and che; /archives//html/Amps/2006-10/msg00223.html (7,241 bytes)
6. Re: [Amps] 3CPX vs 3CX tubes (score: 1): Author: "Peter Voelpel" <df3kv@t-online.de>; Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 14:29:01 +0200; Not only that, it is also too big and heavy for the relatively small power it does, it needs the same space as the 3CX3000A7 73 Peter I have used the GS-35B a couple of times, the tube is rugged and; /archives//html/Amps/2006-10/msg00227.html (7,363 bytes)
7. Re: [Amps] 3CPX vs 3CX tubes (score: 1): Author: Gudguyham@aol.com; Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 16:26:51 EDT; Not only that, it is also too big and heavy for the relatively small power it does, it needs the same space as the 3CX3000A7 73 Peter I have used the GS-35B a couple of times, the tube is rugged and; /archives//html/Amps/2006-10/msg00228.html (7,805 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 7
Page: [1]