Amps
[Top] [All Lists]

[AMPS] RE: 8877 failures; thoriated tungsten vs. indirectly

To: <amps@contesting.com>
Subject: [AMPS] RE: 8877 failures; thoriated tungsten vs. indirectly
From: w8jitom@postoffice.worldnet.att.net (w8jitom@postoffice.worldnet.att.net)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 09:11:45 +0000
> From:          Rich Measures <measures@vc.net>

> Mr. Erhorn:  Did you disassemble any of the out-of-warranty 8877s that 
> failed in the W1AW amplifier prior to June, 1990? .  . 
> thanks
> Rich---
> 

Hi Rich,

I don't know what Dick did, but I can tell you I opened and inspected 
tubes...as did Eimac.

There were two modes of failure. 

One was the heat dam problems Dick pointed out, and another was 
poor gold adhesion. 

In many conversations with Eimac, I was told they believed the poor 
gold adhesion was rooted in  material contamination due to poor air 
purity in Salt Lake City. To compound the problem, both the Chinese 
and a company in California were buying what were supposed to be 
scrapped tubes, and re-labeling them as new Eimac and Penta tubes.

The owner of that "company" was serving time in a public sponsored 
"home away from home".    

That was a problem that took place over years and years, the heat 
dam problem lasted a shorter time.

Perhaps spending more time reading and learning, and less time 
broadcasting totally incorrect information (like your recent 
non-sense about something a simple as a common Bird wattmeter), you'd 
still be accepted as an author. A simple call to Eimac would have put 
you straight on the 8877, preventing years of techno-rubbish invented 
to sell suppression kits.

73, Tom W8JI

--
FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq.html
Submissions:              amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems:                 owner-amps@contesting.com
Search:                   http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>