Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+Bill\s+Orr\s+comment\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+Bill\s+Orr\s+comment\s*$/: 19 ]

Total 19 documents matching your query.

1. [Amps] Bill Orr comment (score: 1): Author: Gudguyham@aol.com; Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:30:20 EDT; I was reading the Bill Orr handbook and on his section about amplifiers he says.....A properly designed grounded grid amplifier should produce 2 to 2.5 times the plate dissapation of the tube in outp; /archives//html/Amps/2008-07/msg00206.html (7,119 bytes)
2. Re: [Amps] Bill Orr comment (score: 1): Author: "Peter Voelpel" <df3kv@t-online.de>; Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:10:14 +0200; 2-2.5 times the dissipation is normal. Assume 1500 out, at 70% efficiency that is 643W dissipation, 1500/643=2.33. Eimac claims 75% efficiency on their 3CX3000A7 datasheet in AB2. 73 Peter I was read; /archives//html/Amps/2008-07/msg00207.html (8,925 bytes)
3. Re: [Amps] Bill Orr comment (score: 1): Author: "Al Waller, K3TKJ" <k3tkj@qsl.net>; Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:24:12 -0400; I have found that is usually the case. Bill Orr (SK) was far from a quack. I would ask your "guru" : 1. How long He worked for Eimac? 2. How many books/articles/white papers has He written? 3. How m; /archives//html/Amps/2008-07/msg00208.html (7,764 bytes)
4. Re: [Amps] Bill Orr comment (score: 1): Author: "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:43:53 -0400; Depends on how much of a quack your resident guru is. A 4-1000A will certainly fit that criteria as well as a 3CX1200. The 8877 wont and neither will a 3-500Z, at least by staying within ratings. The; /archives//html/Amps/2008-07/msg00210.html (9,331 bytes)
5. Re: [Amps] Bill Orr comment (score: 1): Author: "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:51:39 -0400; Absolutely correct. Bills tube articles in QST and CQ are legendary as well as the Care and Feeding books. So who is your "guru" Lou??? Not your buddy in PA I wonder? Carl KM1H ______________________; /archives//html/Amps/2008-07/msg00211.html (8,589 bytes)
6. Re: [Amps] Bill Orr comment (score: 1): Author: "Peter Voelpel" <df3kv@t-online.de>; Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:54:14 +0200; The 3-500Z does it when the anode gets 4KV, otherwise its current is the limit. You are right with the 8877. It all depends on the type of cathode. 73 鈃ter Depends on how much of a quack your reside; /archives//html/Amps/2008-07/msg00212.html (9,812 bytes)
7. Re: [Amps] Bill Orr comment (score: 1): Author: "Roger (K8RI)" <sub1@rogerhalstead.com>; Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:00:32 -0400; I see more than a little ambiguity in that statement. Did he mean under normal operating conditions the output power will be 2 to 2.5 times the power "being dissipated" by the tube or that a tube of; /archives//html/Amps/2008-07/msg00214.html (8,704 bytes)
8. Re: [Amps] Bill Orr comment (score: 1): Author: "Steve Katz" <stevek@jmr.com>; Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:10:28 -0700; at its maximum rated anode voltage in order to derive 2*Pd (1kW) output power in AB2, otherwise Ic will be beyond safe ratings. AB2 eff cannot possibly be 75% unless you're at 180 degree conduction; /archives//html/Amps/2008-07/msg00215.html (9,330 bytes)
9. Re: [Amps] Bill Orr comment (score: 1): Author: Bill Fuqua <wlfuqu00@uky.edu>; Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:28:21 -0400; Many of the old spec sheets indicate a correction for plate tank losses. Also, when figuring class AB2 efficiency don't forget the feed-thru power for grounded grid amplifiers. My 4-1000A amplifier w; /archives//html/Amps/2008-07/msg00216.html (10,922 bytes)
10. Re: [Amps] Bill Orr comment (score: 1): Author: "Peter Voelpel" <df3kv@t-online.de>; Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 22:39:47 +0200; Yes, feed trough power should be subtracted for the real calculation. To me it looks as Eimac did not do that on their 3CX3K datasheet. My glass envelope tubes can be driven very hard in GG without g; /archives//html/Amps/2008-07/msg00217.html (11,364 bytes)
11. Re: [Amps] Bill Orr comment (score: 1): Author: John Becker <johnb3030@comcast.net>; Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:52:02 -0500; Bill Orr's writings go back a long time. Does the article in question say what class of operation he is talking about? Up until the mid to late '50s, Class C designs were common, and they are higher; /archives//html/Amps/2008-07/msg00218.html (8,532 bytes)
12. Re: [Amps] Bill Orr comment (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <w4tv@subich.com>; Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:50:14 -0400; Depends on what Orr means by the statement ... if he means that the output (amplifier + feed through power) will be at least twice the power dissipated in the tube, he's probably accurate at "two ti; /archives//html/Amps/2008-07/msg00220.html (11,679 bytes)
13. Re: [Amps] Bill Orr comment (score: 1): Author: "Steve Katz" <stevek@jmr.com>; Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:51:38 -0700; -WB2WIK/6 Depends on what Orr means by the statement ... if he means that the output (amplifier + feed through power) will be at least twice the power dissipated in the tube, he's probably accurate; /archives//html/Amps/2008-07/msg00221.html (9,129 bytes)
14. Re: [Amps] Bill Orr comment (score: 1): Author: Commander John <crazytvjohn@yahoo.com>; Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:16:16 -0700 (PDT); A lot a hot air here about something that has not been identified as being said by Bill other than heresay. Please provide which handbook, which edition and page this is on. Otherwise just like a lot; /archives//html/Amps/2008-07/msg00222.html (8,416 bytes)
15. Re: [Amps] Bill Orr comment (score: 1): Author: "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:39:01 -0400; Well, I think I can put a finger on that and debunk the naysayers who belong with the original posters "guru" as certified quacks in their own right. " As a rule of thumb, then, a triode tube to be u; /archives//html/Amps/2008-07/msg00223.html (10,185 bytes)
16. Re: [Amps] Bill Orr comment (score: 1): Author: Gudguyham@aol.com; Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:46:23 EDT; Peter DF3KV brought up a good point about Orr "meaning" that the tube should do 2 to 2.5 times the plate dissipation in it's actual usage at rated spec's. His example is proof to that fact. I took th; /archives//html/Amps/2008-07/msg00225.html (8,489 bytes)
17. Re: [Amps] Bill Orr comment (score: 1): Author: "k7rdx" <k7rdx@charter.net>; Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 08:49:10 -0700; Lou: I recall my experiances with 4-1000`s when I ran them in the 70`s&80`s...It was relatively easy to get at least twice the power output per dissipation rating, and a single tube could be pushed t; /archives//html/Amps/2008-07/msg00226.html (10,926 bytes)
18. Re: [Amps] Bill Orr comment (score: 1): Author: Jan Erik Holm <sm2ekm@telia.com>; Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 09:15:35 +0200; Yes indeed, 2.5 no problem with the 4 by 1愀. I ran a pair of 4-1000A愀 for 20 years or so, 200W drive gave just about 5000W output on all bands. Last year I replaced them with a YC-179 however somet; /archives//html/Amps/2008-07/msg00239.html (8,669 bytes)
19. Re: [Amps] Bill Orr comment (score: 1): Author: "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:04:19 -0400; You also have to consider the advertised plate dissipation versus the real. Compare the 4-1000A to the older 1000T for instance. The 1000T had a much smaller plate area and did not use forced air coo; /archives//html/Amps/2008-07/msg00244.html (10,339 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 19
Page: [1]