Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+4CX1500B\'s\s+\-\-\s+worth\s+using\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+4CX1500B\'s\s+\-\-\s+worth\s+using\?\s*$/: 24 ]

Total 24 documents matching your query.

1. [Amps] 4CX1500B's -- worth using? (score: 1): Author: Vic K2VCO <k2vco.vic@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:28:29 -0700; I just found a couple of 4CX1500B's among my junk (I had thought they were 4CX1000's). I was surprised to see that the data sheet indicates that typical operation of a single tube as an AB2 linear am; /archives//html/Amps/2012-06/msg00292.html (7,328 bytes)
2. Re: [Amps] 4CX1500B's -- worth using? (score: 1): Author: RMorris <robrk@nidhog.net>; Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:42:12 -0400; The Collins 30S1 seems to like them.... _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps; /archives//html/Amps/2012-06/msg00293.html (7,615 bytes)
3. Re: [Amps] 4CX1500B's -- worth using? (score: 1): Author: "David C. Hallam" <dhallam@knology.net>; Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 15:08:53 -0400; It's my understand that a 4CX1500B is a direct replacement for a 4CX1000A with a plus that it has an extra 500W dissipation capability. David KW4DH _______________________________________________ Amp; /archives//html/Amps/2012-06/msg00295.html (8,443 bytes)
4. Re: [Amps] 4CX1500B's -- worth using? (score: 1): Author: "Steve Katz" <stevek@jmr.com>; Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:26:01 -0700; Vic, the 4CX1500B can produce >> legal limit output power if you drive it harder than the test conditions shown where Ig is only 0.53 mA. The tube can handle a few mA of Ig and produce substantially; /archives//html/Amps/2012-06/msg00296.html (9,585 bytes)
5. Re: [Amps] 4CX1500B's -- worth using? (score: 1): Author: David Kirkby <david.kirkby@onetel.net>; Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 20:28:58 +0100; I don't think they are as similar as you think. The 4CX1500B is a better tube overall. See data sheeets on my site - www.g8wrb.org dave _______________________________________________ Amps mailing li; /archives//html/Amps/2012-06/msg00297.html (8,020 bytes)
6. Re: [Amps] 4CX1500B's -- worth using? (score: 1): Author: "David C. Hallam" <dhallam@knology.net>; Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 15:37:50 -0400; That's what I was trying to imply. The writer of the original post on the matter seemed to have the idea that a 4CX1500B was not as good as a 4CX1000A. David KW4DH ___________________________________; /archives//html/Amps/2012-06/msg00298.html (8,491 bytes)
7. Re: [Amps] 4CX1500B's -- worth using? (score: 1): Author: David Kirkby <david.kirkby@onetel.net>; Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 20:52:50 +0100; I don't think they are direct replacements. IIRC the screen voltage is different, though perhaps not so drastically so that your could not use the same screen voltage. The filament of the 4CX1500B ne; /archives//html/Amps/2012-06/msg00299.html (8,283 bytes)
8. Re: [Amps] 4CX1500B's -- worth using? (score: 1): Author: "Peter Voelpel" <df3kv@t-online.de>; Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 22:02:45 +0200; I built a 4CX1000A push-pull amp for 2m in the past, it did about 3KW+ output and was extremely clean. A couple of friends built them also with the same experience. 73 Peter, DJ7WW --Original Message; /archives//html/Amps/2012-06/msg00300.html (9,124 bytes)
9. Re: [Amps] 4CX1500B's -- worth using? (score: 1): Author: "Val" <val@vip.bg>; Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 00:24:20 +0300; David is right. 4CX1500B seems to be just 4CX1000A with declared 500W extra dissipation at the expense of the air flow. The grid and screen however are same - very fragile. That's why it can't produc; /archives//html/Amps/2012-06/msg00301.html (8,244 bytes)
10. Re: [Amps] 4CX1500B's -- worth using? (score: 1): Author: "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:57:51 -0400; The 4CX1500B is a direct replacement in a Collins 30S1 without any changes OR the increased screen voltage mod can be done for more power. Idle current bias needs a tweak and a heat extractor is a go; /archives//html/Amps/2012-06/msg00302.html (10,465 bytes)
11. Re: [Amps] 4CX1500B's -- worth using? (score: 1): Author: "David C. Hallam" <dhallam@knology.net>; Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 18:21:02 -0400; That's why my HB linear has a 4CX1500A. David KW4DH _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps; /archives//html/Amps/2012-06/msg00303.html (11,824 bytes)
12. Re: [Amps] 4CX1500B's -- worth using? (score: 1): Author: "Peter Voelpel" <df3kv@t-online.de>; Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 00:32:01 +0200; That less output is caused by the load line used with Eimacs specification which is more A then AB1 resulting in lower efficiency and lower intermodulation distortion. The 4CX1500B however can be dri; /archives//html/Amps/2012-06/msg00304.html (8,853 bytes)
13. Re: [Amps] 4CX1500B's -- worth using? (score: 1): Author: "Peter Voelpel" <df3kv@t-online.de>; Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 00:35:21 +0200; And the 5CX1500A is used in mine, nice tube as well 73 Peter, DJ7WW That's why my HB linear has a 4CX1500A. David KW4DH _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesti; /archives//html/Amps/2012-06/msg00305.html (12,359 bytes)
14. Re: [Amps] 4CX1500B's -- worth using? (score: 1): Author: donroden@hiwaay.net; Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:49:31 -0500; Then why does the new ACOM 1500 use the 4CX1000A ? Don W4DNR _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps; /archives//html/Amps/2012-06/msg00306.html (8,447 bytes)
15. Re: [Amps] 4CX1500B's -- worth using? (score: 1): Author: "k7fm" <k7fm@teleport.com>; Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:04:20 -0700; Then why does the new ACOM 1500 use the 4CX1000A 1. Cheaper 2. Manufactured by some companies that do not make the 4CX1500 3. Less filament current 4. Less air restriction, so a smaller blower can be; /archives//html/Amps/2012-06/msg00307.html (8,942 bytes)
16. Re: [Amps] 4CX1500B's -- worth using? (score: 1): Author: "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 20:05:48 -0400; Because the Chinese make and use them _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps; /archives//html/Amps/2012-06/msg00312.html (9,631 bytes)
17. Re: [Amps] 4CX1500B's -- worth using? (score: 1): Author: "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 20:15:20 -0400; At 1000W PD the 1500B requires less air (18 vs 25)at virtually the same pressure drop (.23 vs .20). There is a huge increase going to 1500W. Carl KM1H _______________________________________________; /archives//html/Amps/2012-06/msg00313.html (10,028 bytes)
18. Re: [Amps] 4CX1500B's -- worth using? (score: 1): Author: "Roger (K8RI)" <k8ri@rogerhalstead.com>; Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 22:06:27 -0400; The DX-2sp is a great example of that with its Chinese version the 4CX1500B, the FU728F. Run it easy and it'll just loaf along. Run the legal limit on high duty cycle and the blowers will kick into h; /archives//html/Amps/2012-06/msg00315.html (11,908 bytes)
19. Re: [Amps] 4CX1500B's -- worth using? (score: 1): Author: Ian White GM3SEK <gm3sek@ifwtech.co.uk>; Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:27:04 +0100; But also a different anode cooler with a genuinely higher dissipation. That's right. The 1500B would produce as much output as the 1000A if Eimac had chosen to specify different operating conditions.; /archives//html/Amps/2012-06/msg00320.html (10,834 bytes)
20. Re: [Amps] 4CX1500B's -- worth using? (score: 1): Author: Ian White GM3SEK <gm3sek@ifwtech.co.uk>; Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:57:18 +0100; Sorry, Peter was right. It is essentially the same air cooler on both tubes, but with an increased air flow rating for 1500W. -- 73 from Ian GM3SEK http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek ____________________; /archives//html/Amps/2012-06/msg00322.html (8,901 bytes)

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