Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+Price\s+per\s+Watt\s+Conversation\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+Price\s+per\s+Watt\s+Conversation\s*$/: 77 ]

Total 77 documents matching your query.

1. [Amps] Price per Watt Conversation (score: 1): Author: Jay Terleski <jayt@arraysolutions.com>; Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 15:53:38 -0500; OM-2000+ 2,000 Watts $3.379.00 At the US legal limit, it's $2.25/Watt. It's also a tube amp while you show/compare it against the list of solid state amps. Cathy, the PW-1 is a 1000W amplifier per Ic; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00170.html (7,296 bytes)
2. Re: [Amps] Price per Watt Conversation (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>; Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 17:38:42 -0400; Several of the newer LDMOS designs are using *two* active devices rated at 1500W each. They are not nearly as stressed as older devices run into saturation and should provide significantly better IMD; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00173.html (9,304 bytes)
3. Re: [Amps] Price per Watt Conversation (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@outlook.com>; Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 00:21:04 +0000; -- ORIGINAL MESSAGE --(may be snipped) REPLY: U agree a lot of tubes may disappear but I suspect the 8877 will be around longer than we will. 73, Bill W6WRT __________________________________________; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00177.html (7,623 bytes)
4. Re: [Amps] Price per Watt Conversation (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>; Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 23:25:49 -0400; And none of the new design amplifiers from Eastern Europe use the 8877 - they all appear to use Chinese tubes of uncertain pedigree or quality. 73, ... Joe, W4TV _____________________________________; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00184.html (7,739 bytes)
5. Re: [Amps] Price per Watt Conversation (score: 1): Author: "Leigh Turner" <invertech@frontierisp.net.au>; Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 19:50:53 +0930; I agree Jay and Joe; tube amps and replacement tubes will be around for quite a while to come; longer than most of us old geezers on this amps forum! They produce excellent bang for buck and operatio; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00188.html (10,693 bytes)
6. Re: [Amps] Price per Watt Conversation (score: 1): Author: Manfred Mornhinweg <manfred@ludens.cl>; Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 16:37:38 +0000; Hi all, just a quick comment about a point touched by Joe: Several of the newer LDMOS designs are using *two* active devices rated at 1500W each. I'm not aware of any LDMOSFETs rated at 1500W output; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00189.html (17,494 bytes)
7. Re: [Amps] Price per Watt Conversation (score: 1): Author: Catherine James <catherine.james@att.net>; Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 16:53:50 +0000 (UTC); Manfred, So would it be better to use 4 or or more devices with somewhat lower ratings for linear operation? Is there a cheaper option to use simpler heat sinks that don't have to be carefully machin; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00190.html (8,074 bytes)
8. Re: [Amps] Price per Watt Conversation (score: 1): Author: "Roger (K8RI)" <k8ri@rogerhalstead.com>; Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 20:20:30 -0400; There was such a device listed on here just a few days ago, rated at 2KW "carrier" MAX for $250 ea. A pair running 1500 out would be very conservative. It's a given that running them at max would res; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00195.html (9,391 bytes)
9. [Amps] Price per Watt Conversation (score: 1): Author: "Jim Thomson" <jim.thom@telus.net>; Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 19:08:30 -0700; Manfred, So would it be better to use 4 or or more devices with somewhat lower ratings for linear operation? Is there a cheaper option to use simpler heat sinks that don't have to be carefully machin; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00197.html (8,882 bytes)
10. Re: [Amps] Price per Watt Conversation (score: 1): Author: "Leigh Turner" <invertech@frontierisp.net.au>; Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 13:16:24 +0930; I concur with your more conservative design strategy here Jim. The latest MRFX1K80H devices are certainly a step in the right direction for high-power RF amplifier devices; but limitations remain par; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00198.html (11,694 bytes)
11. [Amps] Price per Watt Conversation (score: 1): Author: "Jim Thomson" <jim.thom@telus.net>; Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 21:56:38 -0700; There was such a device listed on here just a few days ago, rated at 2KW "carrier" MAX for $250 ea. A pair running 1500 out would be very conservative. It's a given that running them at max would res; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00199.html (10,679 bytes)
12. Re: [Amps] Price per Watt Conversation (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@outlook.com>; Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 05:18:31 +0000; -- ORIGINAL MESSAGE --(may be snipped) REPLY: I'm sure commercial manufacturers are well aware of this. The last thing they want is a reputation for making lemons, a sure road to bankruptcy. The more; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00200.html (9,419 bytes)
13. Re: [Amps] Price per Watt Conversation (score: 1): Author: "Roger (K8RI)" <k8ri@rogerhalstead.com>; Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 02:21:36 -0400; On the parallel, PP, the convention has been PP, parallel. Each unit runs two devices, PP with the outputs into a combiner.. Those new 65 Volt devices, http://www.richardsonrfpd.com/Pages/Product-Det; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00201.html (11,985 bytes)
14. Re: [Amps] Price per Watt Conversation (score: 1): Author: "Roger (K8RI)" <k8ri@rogerhalstead.com>; Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 03:04:39 -0400; 75.6% efficiency shows the devices are biased deep into class C, not pulsed. Linear should be 60 to 65%. With 4 devices running 1500 to 2500 PEP total out the heat and junction temperatures should no; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00202.html (13,278 bytes)
15. Re: [Amps] Price per Watt Conversation (score: 1): Author: "Mark Hill" <g4fph@mjha.co.uk>; Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 09:30:46 +0100; SPE should be in a good position to follow the 'multiple devices, under run' approach. Their still current 2K-FA amplifier uses 6 pallets, each pallet having a single 300 W, MRF151G, transistor. Then; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00203.html (11,353 bytes)
16. Re: [Amps] Price per Watt Conversation (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@outlook.com>; Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 09:09:49 +0000; -- ORIGINAL MESSAGE --(may be snipped) REPLY: Good point. Induced voltage from a nearby lightning strike could be a serious problem. 73, Bill W6WRT _______________________________________________ Amp; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00204.html (8,746 bytes)
17. Re: [Amps] Price per Watt Conversation (score: 1): Author: "Ken Durand" <N4zed@comcast.net>; Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 07:53:51 -0400; New NPX LDMOS.... 1800w CW http://www.nxp.com/products/rf/rf-power-transistors/rf-broadcast-and-ism/1-6 00-mhz-broadcast-and-ism/1800-w-cw-over-1.8-470-mhz-65-v-wideband-rf-power-l dmos-transistor:MR; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00206.html (17,823 bytes)
18. [Amps] Price per Watt Conversation (score: 1): Author: "Jim Thomson" <jim.thom@telus.net>; Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 06:35:54 -0700; REPLY: Good point. Induced voltage from a nearby lightning strike could be a serious problem. 73, Bill W6WRT blowing up ? Or do they just blow up on RX..or perhaps the PIN diode TR portion blows up..; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00212.html (8,699 bytes)
19. Re: [Amps] Price per Watt Conversation (score: 1): Author: "Kevin Stover, AC0H" <kstover@ac0h.net>; Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 09:15:01 -0500; Agree, I'd use the phrase "de-rated" like they do in aircraft engines. Aircraft engines are rated for a certain horse power or thrust at sea level. An engine thermally rated for 900 HP might only mak; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00214.html (12,730 bytes)
20. [Amps] Price per Watt Conversation (score: 1): Author: "Jim Thomson" <jim.thom@telus.net>; Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 07:38:40 -0700; With 4 devices at $1,000, we are very close to the cost of tubes capable of running any mode at the legal limit. 73, Roger (K8RI) $799.00 buys you a spanky new 3CX-3000A7. That extra $30.00 is well s; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00215.html (9,645 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4]