Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+AL\-1200\s+vs\s+AL\-1500\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+AL\-1200\s+vs\s+AL\-1500\s*$/: 27 ]

Total 27 documents matching your query.

1. [Amps] AL-1200 vs AL-1500 (score: 1): Author: "Dennis Sokol " <dajs@accnorwalk.com>; Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 20:17:13 -0500; Most contest stations choosing Ameritron use the Al-1200. Several reasons but primarily the 3CX1200A7 is virtually indestructible and instant on so in the heat of contesting, the owners don't worry a; /archives//html/Amps/2005-02/msg00707.html (7,230 bytes)
2. [Amps] AL-1200 vs AL-1500 (score: 1): Author: "Dennis Sokol " <dajs@accnorwalk.com>; Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 20:17:14 -0500; Most contest stations choosing Ameritron use the Al-1200. Several reasons but primarily the 3CX1200A7 is virtually indestructible and instant on so in the heat of contesting, the owners don't worry a; /archives//html/Amps/2005-02/msg00708.html (7,030 bytes)
3. Re: [Amps] AL-1200 vs AL-1500 (score: 1): Author: it9blb@infcom.it; Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 08:55:48 GMT; IMHO a contester doesn't really need the instant on feature. I give more priority to lower drive power needed: exiter (mostly if a 100wout max one)will be better employed if less then its maximum pow; /archives//html/Amps/2005-02/msg00718.html (7,531 bytes)
4. Re: [Amps] AL-1200 vs AL-1500 (score: 1): Author: R.Measures <r@somis.org>; Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 02:56:51 -0800; Good point. Other advantages are that the AL-1200 uses a parasite suppressor, the AL-1500 does not, plus the 3cx1200A7 does not use a gold plated grid, and the 8877 does -- i. e., it can suffer from; /archives//html/Amps/2005-02/msg00722.html (8,010 bytes)
5. Re: [Amps] AL-1200 vs AL-1500 (score: 1): Author: "Blake M." <n4gi@tampabay.rr.com>; Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 06:40:22 -0500; Usually contest start times are well known. If I'm operating a 48 hour contest, planning to turn the amp on 3 minutes ahead of 00:00 isn't that hard. For contesting, I think overhead capability is a; /archives//html/Amps/2005-02/msg00726.html (7,457 bytes)
6. [Amps] AL-1200 vs AL-1500 (score: 1): Author: "Dennis Sokol " <dajs@accnorwalk.com>; Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 10:05:01 -0500; The main point of my post was the ruggedness and reliability of the 3CX1200A7 tube in the AL-1200. It has one of the lowest failure rates of any transmitting tube made by Eimac. The 8877, in contrast; /archives//html/Amps/2005-02/msg00735.html (7,584 bytes)
7. Re: [Amps] AL-1200 vs AL-1500 (score: 1): Author: TexasRF@aol.com; Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 12:47:37 EST; The main point of my post was the ruggedness and reliability of the 3CX1200A7 tube in the AL-1200. It has one of the lowest failure rates of any transmitting tube made by Eimac. The 8877, in contrast; /archives//html/Amps/2005-02/msg00747.html (8,304 bytes)
8. Re: [Amps] AL-1200 vs AL-1500 (score: 1): Author: Mike Manship <mjmanship@iquest.net>; Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 13:14:18 -0500; Ah, but those amps are just for show. The real amp (Big Bad Bonecrusher) is hidden in the closet ! 73 de Mike W9OJ _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.c; /archives//html/Amps/2005-02/msg00752.html (7,863 bytes)
9. Re: [Amps] AL-1200 vs AL-1500 (score: 1): Author: "Phil Clements" <philk5pc@tyler.net>; Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 13:45:55 -0600; I remember us talking about the 3CX1200's in you store when they first hit the market. You thought at that time that the tube would be the 4-1000A of the 21st century. I think time has proven you ri; /archives//html/Amps/2005-02/msg00768.html (8,700 bytes)
10. [Amps] AL-1200 vs AL-1500 (score: 1): Author: "Harold B. Mandel" <ka1xo@juno.com>; Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 15:42:39 -0500; On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 13:14:18 -0500 Mike Manship <mjmanship@iquest.net> writes: My buddy got a call yesterday from someone who's building a dual tube 3CX20,000 and the guy wants to know if his 12 poun; /archives//html/Amps/2005-02/msg00776.html (8,344 bytes)
11. Re: [Amps] AL-1200 vs AL-1500 (score: 1): Author: Joe Isabella <n3ji@yahoo.com>; Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 14:31:09 -0800 (PST); Maybe he could use one of these amps for drive... On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 13:14:18 -0500 Mike Manship writes: My buddy got a call yesterday from someone who's building a dual tube 3CX20,000 and the guy w; /archives//html/Amps/2005-02/msg00783.html (8,950 bytes)
12. Re: [Amps] AL-1200 vs AL-1500 (score: 1): Author: "Robert Pack (NX5M)" <nx5m@txcyber.com>; Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:55:25 -0600; I am not concerned with instant-on. Blake is right, the contest starts at a given time so the equipment is up an running several minutes before the start. IF during the operation the amp has to be re; /archives//html/Amps/2005-02/msg00790.html (10,183 bytes)
13. Re: [Amps] AL-1200 vs AL-1500 (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, K4IK" <k4ik@subich.com>; Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:45:27 -0500; The one problem with the AL-1500 is the sensitivity of the 8877 to changes in the load. K8CC has written several times about problems with high grid current as the load changes with multiple antennas; /archives//html/Amps/2005-02/msg00792.html (8,649 bytes)
14. Re: [Amps] AL-1200 vs AL-1500 (score: 1): Author: "K7RDX" <k7rdx@earthlink.net>; Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:15:04 -0800; Not in the closet.....In the garage or small out-building supplied with three phase service.Jim.. -- Original Message -- From: "Mike Manship" <mjmanship@iquest.net> To: <amps@contesting.com> Sent: Th; /archives//html/Amps/2005-02/msg00793.html (9,085 bytes)
15. Re: [Amps] AL-1200 vs AL-1500 (score: 1): Author: R.Measures <r@somis.org>; Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 05:30:12 -0800; The 8877 can not be faulted for failure in HF service due to gold-sputtering from the grid because that problem is the failure of the designer to take into account the 8877's extraordinary UHF gain.; /archives//html/Amps/2005-02/msg00796.html (9,765 bytes)
16. Re: [Amps] AL-1200 vs AL-1500 (score: 1): Author: R.Measures <r@somis.org>; Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 05:42:54 -0800; Indeed, Mike. There are more tetrodes with handles in Hamdom's closets than in shacks. I know of one station who built a 13db "storage cabinet" in the shack for this purpose. Curiously, the storage c; /archives//html/Amps/2005-02/msg00797.html (8,859 bytes)
17. Re: [Amps] AL-1200 vs AL-1500 (score: 1): Author: n4gi@tampabay.rr.com; Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 09:06:12 -0500; For grins, I looked here quickly: http://www.pvrc.org/WCSD/specialized_database_searches.htm ...and found 82 AL1200s 72 AL1500s Hardly a difference. The clear "winner" was the homebrew class @ 165.; /archives//html/Amps/2005-02/msg00799.html (8,642 bytes)
18. Re: [Amps] AL-1200 vs AL-1500 (score: 1): Author: W2RU - Bud Hippisley <W2RU@frontiernet.net>; Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:24:36 +0000; Perhaps. But the SB-220/SB-221 is 175, with far less variability than the homebrew class. Bud, W2RU _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.; /archives//html/Amps/2005-02/msg00801.html (8,123 bytes)
19. Re: [Amps] AL-1200 vs AL-1500 (score: 1): Author: Dave Haupt <emailw8nf@yahoo.com>; Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 09:02:41 -0800 (PST); Searching simply for "Alpha" nets over 1,000 of them. The vast majority of the Alphas listed use either the 3XC400A7 or the 3CX800A7, with a smaller sampling of the 4CX800A and the 3CX1500A7. All ox; /archives//html/Amps/2005-02/msg00810.html (8,905 bytes)
20. Re: [Amps] AL-1200 vs AL-1500 (score: 1): Author: R.Measures <r@somis.org>; Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 09:31:52 -0800; 2000pF is enough for 40m (X = 10-ohms). Richard L. Measures, AG6K, 805.386.3734. www.somis.org _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.conte; /archives//html/Amps/2005-02/msg00812.html (9,438 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]