Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+Stock\s+up\s+on\s+tubes\?\s*$/: 36 ]

Total 36 documents matching your query.

1. [Amps] Stock up on tubes? (score: 1)
Author: Catherine James <catherine.james@att.net>
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2016 19:03:02 -0800
What's everyone doing to plan for the day when most tubes are unobtainium? I am wondering if I should be stocking up on Ryazan G811A tubes. They seem to shelf-age in a more friendly way than the 3-50
/archives//html/Amps/2016-12/msg00043.html (7,496 bytes)

2. Re: [Amps] Stock up on tubes? (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@outlook.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2016 06:10:17 +0000
-- ORIGINAL MESSAGE --(may be snipped) REPLY: My advice is to get an amp with an 8877. They have been in production since 1970 at least and will probably be around that much longer. In every respect
/archives//html/Amps/2016-12/msg00051.html (7,970 bytes)

3. Re: [Amps] Stock up on tubes? (score: 1)
Author: Rob Atkinson <ranchorobbo@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2016 06:19:20 -0600
As hams drink the solid state kool-aide and rush out to unload their perfectly good tube gear and buy dinky little light weight plastic boxes with heat sinks, the rest of us reap the benefits of the
/archives//html/Amps/2016-12/msg00055.html (8,559 bytes)

4. Re: [Amps] Stock up on tubes? (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@outlook.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2016 13:41:04 +0000
-- ORIGINAL MESSAGE --(may be snipped) REPLY: If it were my SB 2xx amp I would replace the 3-500(s) with a single 8877. It is a smaller tube so it should fit OK, and a single 8877 has more power capa
/archives//html/Amps/2016-12/msg00059.html (8,713 bytes)

5. Re: [Amps] Stock up on tubes? (score: 1)
Author: Catherine James <catherine.james@att.net>
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2016 05:56:22 -0800
Sounds like a business opportunity for a small outfit like King Conversions. _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/
/archives//html/Amps/2016-12/msg00060.html (7,271 bytes)

6. Re: [Amps] Stock up on tubes? (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@outlook.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2016 14:03:49 +0000
-- ORIGINAL MESSAGE --(may be snipped) REPLY: The same attitude was common when transceivers moved from tubes to solid state. How did that work out? 73, Bill W6WRT ___________________________________
/archives//html/Amps/2016-12/msg00061.html (8,440 bytes)

7. Re: [Amps] Stock up on tubes? (score: 1)
Author: "Hardy Landskov" <n7rt@cox.net>
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2016 09:05:12 -0500
IMO the 8877 would be a winner with another 1000 to 1500 volts on the plate. N7RT/4 -- ORIGINAL MESSAGE --(may be snipped) thousands of SB 2nn series Heath amps?? REPLY: If it were my SB 2xx amp I wo
/archives//html/Amps/2016-12/msg00062.html (9,600 bytes)

8. Re: [Amps] Stock up on tubes? (score: 1)
Author: Rob Atkinson <ranchorobbo@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2016 09:31:57 -0600
Who cares; it's go nothing to do with transceivers, you can't even get my call-sign right, and you wonder vaguely about some "gotcha" converting a lightweight Heathkit amp to an 8877, evidently not e
/archives//html/Amps/2016-12/msg00066.html (9,021 bytes)

9. Re: [Amps] Stock up on tubes? (score: 1)
Author: Rob Atkinson <ranchorobbo@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2016 12:31:34 -0600
I misread this comment; I thought it meant the same attitude was common when hams went from separates to transceivers. I must apologize for that error. It's entirely possible that attitude existed w
/archives//html/Amps/2016-12/msg00067.html (8,471 bytes)

10. Re: [Amps] Stock up on tubes? (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@outlook.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2016 20:23:18 +0000
-- ORIGINAL MESSAGE --(may be snipped) REPLY: If you will forgive me for getting your callsign wrong, I will forgive you for totally misreading my message. 73, Bill W6WRT ____________________________
/archives//html/Amps/2016-12/msg00068.html (8,506 bytes)

11. Re: [Amps] Stock up on tubes? (score: 1)
Author: Kim Elmore <cw_de_n5op@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2016 15:43:53 -0600
I've been around long enough (not as long as many others) to see predictions about the downfall and soon-to-be-obsolete status of <lots of things>. As an undergrad forty years ago, I recall hearing c
/archives//html/Amps/2016-12/msg00077.html (10,863 bytes)

12. Re: [Amps] Stock up on tubes? (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@outlook.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2016 22:48:45 +0000
-- ORIGINAL MESSAGE --(may be snipped) REPLY: In terms of the device itself, that day is already here. The LDMOS devices from NXP are fully capable of replacing tubes in a legal limit amp and the pri
/archives//html/Amps/2016-12/msg00079.html (9,309 bytes)

13. Re: [Amps] Stock up on tubes? (score: 1)
Author: Catherine James <catherine.james@att.net>
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2016 16:47:53 -0800
We'll see. Last time I looked, the cost per watt of solid state amps was still 2X vacuum tubes. I'm sure that won't last forever, but I have not been seeing the price of complete solid state amps (as
/archives//html/Amps/2016-12/msg00082.html (8,719 bytes)

14. Re: [Amps] Stock up on tubes? (score: 1)
Author: Rob Atkinson <ranchorobbo@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2016 19:06:56 -0600
That sounds like a great deal to me--you're on! 73 Rob K5UJ -- ORIGINAL MESSAGE --(may be snipped) REPLY: If you will forgive me for getting your callsign wrong, I will forgive you for totally misrea
/archives//html/Amps/2016-12/msg00083.html (8,688 bytes)

15. Re: [Amps] Stock up on tubes? (score: 1)
Author: "qrv@kd4e.com" <qrv@kd4e.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2016 20:29:40 -0500
An inexpensive single device simple amp (no autotuner, no bells & whistles) could run clean & cool at 600w? http://www.eham.net/articles/34850 10 dB above 100w at received end? $200. for the device +
/archives//html/Amps/2016-12/msg00085.html (10,454 bytes)

16. Re: [Amps] Stock up on tubes? (score: 1)
Author: Chas Hamilton <schuetzen@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 04:41:04 -0600
Is that one 8877 per 3-500 as in my SB220? Sent from my iPhone 6s+ _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/a
/archives//html/Amps/2016-12/msg00095.html (10,855 bytes)

17. Re: [Amps] Stock up on tubes? (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 21:15:02 +0000
-- ORIGINAL MESSAGE --(may be snipped) REPLY: No, one 8877 would replace two (or even three) 3-500's. 73, Bill W6WRT _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.
/archives//html/Amps/2016-12/msg00101.html (9,180 bytes)

18. Re: [Amps] Stock up on tubes? (score: 1)
Author: Roger D Johnson <n1rj@roadrunner.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2016 17:27:48 -0500
This is like swapping engines in a car. It sounds simple but is fraught with problems. 1. Input Z of 8877 is different requiring rebuilding of input circuits. 2. Power transformer will not handle inc
/archives//html/Amps/2016-12/msg00102.html (10,965 bytes)

19. Re: [Amps] Stock up on tubes? (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 23:14:01 +0000
-- ORIGINAL MESSAGE --(may be snipped) REPLY: I'm not suggesting increasing the power output with an 8877 replacement, only that it is a better tube than a single or dual 3-500Z. For example, a pair
/archives//html/Amps/2016-12/msg00103.html (10,596 bytes)

20. Re: [Amps] Stock up on tubes? (score: 1)
Author: Mike Waters <mikewate@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 17:25:04 -0600
Good answers. Question on #2 below: Is the power transformer in the SB-220 conservatively rated, as the one in the SB-200 is? Some hams have replaced the 572-Bs with GI-7BTs, and the SB-200's transfo
/archives//html/Amps/2016-12/msg00104.html (10,335 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]
This search system is powered by Namazu