Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+EIMAC\s+vs\s+Amperex\s+3\-500\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+EIMAC\s+vs\s+Amperex\s+3\-500\s*$/: 7 ]

Total 7 documents matching your query.

1. [Amps] EIMAC vs Amperex 3-500 (score: 1): Author: "john.keating@outlook.com" <john.keating@outlook.com>; Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2022 01:30:38 +0000; Spec sheets for these tubes appear identical. Yet they behave differently in my dual 3-500 amp. I can drive the Amperex at 90w for near-legal limit out (power gain of about 16x) without exceeding 200; /archives//html/Amps/2022-10/msg00029.html (7,288 bytes)
2. Re: [Amps] EIMAC vs Amperex 3-500 (score: 1): Author: gudguyham--- via Amps <amps@contesting.com>; Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2022 09:36:27 +0000 (UTC); When you talk 200ma is that for one tube or two? What mode are you figuring on? Using SSB (ICAS) peak grid current of 200ma per tube and 400ma for two is no big deal. The CCS rating on a 3-500 is; /archives//html/Amps/2022-10/msg00034.html (9,677 bytes)
3. Re: [Amps] EIMAC vs Amperex 3-500 (score: 1): Author: "john.keating@outlook.com" <john.keating@outlook.com>; Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2022 15:06:35 +0000; 200mA is the total for two tubes, that's in the amp tune condition, single tone key down. My question is more about why the Amperex and Eimacs draw such different grid current under identical operati; /archives//html/Amps/2022-10/msg00035.html (11,449 bytes)
4. Re: [Amps] EIMAC vs Amperex 3-500 (score: 1): Author: gudguyham--- via Amps <amps@contesting.com>; Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2022 17:52:39 +0000 (UTC); Im sure that depends on the health of the tubes. Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS <!--#yiv7255510015 blockquote.yiv7255510015cite {margin-left:5px;margin-right:0px;padding-left:10px;padding-righ; /archives//html/Amps/2022-10/msg00036.html (11,271 bytes)
5. Re: [Amps] EIMAC vs Amperex 3-500 (score: 1): Author: John Lyles <jtml@losalamos.com>; Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2022 15:46:39 -0600; If you look closely at the Amperex tube, you may note that the anode (plate) shape is different than the CPI/Eimac 3-500Z. Most of the Amperex/Covimag tubes have a wavy horizontal structure with a d; /archives//html/Amps/2022-10/msg00042.html (10,517 bytes)
6. Re: [Amps] EIMAC vs Amperex 3-500 (score: 1): Author: Rob Atkinson <ranchorobbo@gmail.com>; Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2022 05:30:07 -0500; Maybe the Amperex tubes have lower emission. Maybe they've been used a lot more? The link to the Eimac switch tube note gave me some kind of crazy page wanting to install cookies or something. No tha; /archives//html/Amps/2022-10/msg00045.html (7,907 bytes)
7. Re: [Amps] EIMAC vs Amperex 3-500 (score: 1): Author: John Lyles <jtml@losalamos.com>; Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2022 01:26:11 -0600; Rob and all, I apologize for the wierd WEtransfer link. On my desktop it works fine and is a simple storage location like Dropbox or Googledrive, for a temporary document or image file. On my Android; /archives//html/Amps/2022-10/msg00053.html (13,724 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 7
Page: [1]