----- Original Message -----
From: "KB0NLY" <kb0nly@mchsi.com>
To: "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>
Cc: <amps@contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: [Amps] 810 Amplifier
> Don't go making statements about me not knowing what I am doing.
> Thank you very much. If you want to call me incompetent you come here
> and say it to my face rather than hide behind an email address.
Send me the airline ticket.
>
> I wasn't going to say it, but now that you insulted me that POS amp
> that I had the chance to go through came from you. The cosmetics were
> horrible and the operation and construction practices worst.
Id be interested in knowing who (and when) it was converted for. I keep
full records and photos of what leaves here.
And since you are such an experienced builder what was wrong with the
construction? Can you guarantee that all was as it left here?
But then you already know
> that with all the flames you have gotten on eHam and QRZ.
Any one with intelligence can see that those were a setup. I was warned
to not do the conversion for that particular nutcase and did exactly
what was requested (demanded actually). Ive also chosen to not reply to
the comments either, I dont need a psycho on my case.
>
> Keep building your amps for all I care, just don't tell me how great
> they are.
>
> Enough said..
I dont need to, my satisfied customers are the best advertisement. I
also stand behind every amp for a full year and would have expected a
call if there was a problem.
Carl
KM1H
>
> 73,
>
> Scott
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>
> To: "KB0NLY" <kb0nly@mchsi.com>; <amps@contesting.com>
> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 8:35 AM
> Subject: Re: [Amps] 810 Amplifier
>
>
>> If you knew what you were doing you wouldnt have made that statement
>> about 572's. Incompetents copying incompent published articles are at
>> the core of the problem.
>>
>> As far as sounding bad, that is often a big problem brought on by the
>> class of operator using the equipment. They come from an enviroment
>> where the higher the meters swing the better they can "shoot skip".
>>
>> I'll stay out of the black myth for now. That and parasitics are two
>> that never seem to go away.
>>
>> Carl
>> KM1H
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "KB0NLY" <kb0nly@mchsi.com>
>> To: <amps@contesting.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:06 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Amps] 810 Amplifier
>>
>>
>>> Being that I own a SB-200, for HF, and have played with a few
>>> converted to
>>> 6m, I knew when it came time to have a 6m amp of my own I was going
>>> with
>>> something different. They are either unstable or dirty on the
>>> output.
>>> Not
>>> to mention the 572B's are a POOR choice for 6m operation. Sure they
>>> work,
>>> but after hearing a few guys using these conversions on the air I
>>> can
>>> safely
>>> say they sound like crap. I had one in here about a half year ago
>>> that the
>>> owner was complaining didn't work reliably. It was a hacked up mod,
>>> the
>>> wiring was terrible, the solder joints not much better. We decided
>>> to
>>> gut
>>> it and start over but he didn't want to spend the money so I sold it
>>> on eBay
>>> for him, AS-IS...
>>>
>>> That's why I built mine using the GI-7B. It was an adventure
>>> learning
>>> everything I needed to build it, but in the end it was fun and well
>>> worth
>>> the effort for a clean sounding amp that makes power reliably.
>>>
>>> 73,
>>>
>>> Scott
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Jeff Blaine" <keepwalking188@yahoo.com>
>>> To: "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>
>>> Cc: <amps@contesting.com>
>>> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 5:20 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Amps] 810 Amplifier
>>>
>>>
>>>> Carl,
>>>>
>>>> Can you send us some of whatever is in the water up there? Because
>>>> the
>>>> SB200's in this part of the world are sure in need of that magic
>>>> elixor.
>>>>
>>>> What's the plate dis of a pair of 572b? Something like 360w?
>>>> Maybe
>>>> that is the answer to my question on the other subject of anode dis
>>>> limits...
>>>>
>>>> Clearly a sample size of 250 sb200 converted to 6m service is an
>>>> extreeme case (given the tubes start running out of gas at 30mhz
>>>> more
>>>> or
>>>> less) - and a large sample set of 200 statistically is very
>>>> significant.
>>>>
>>>> If that tube will work at 2x the plate dis in the north east, then
>>>> I
>>>> surely should be able to get the similar multiplier from my
>>>> conversion
>>>> project here in the fly-over country.
>>>>
>>>> 73/jeff/ac0c
>>>>
>>>> Carl wrote:
>>>>> My 2 cents anyway. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep, I agree with the above<G>
>>>>>
>>>>> In my experience with converting around 250 SB-200's to 6M I can
>>>>> unequivocally say that a majority still have the original Cetrons
>>>>> installed and will run 700W + key down on 6M on a 240V AC line. A
>>>>> bit
>>>>> less on 120V.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your milage may vary.
>>>>>
>>>>> Altho I feel the 4 x 810 project is a wasted effort it is possible
>>>>> to
>>>>> do it with 4 x 813's and cover 160-10M.
>>>>>
>>>>> Carl
>>>>> KM1H
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Blaine"
>>>>> <keepwalking188@yahoo.com>
>>>>> To: "George Knight" <gkve3ltu@sympatico.ca>
>>>>> Cc: <amps@contesting.com>
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 3:21 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Amps] 810 Amplifier
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> George,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You may want to consider a trio of GI7B (less complicated) or
>>>>>> perhaps a
>>>>>> 4cx800 (more complicated) if you run something other than SSB.
>>>>>> These
>>>>>> ceramic tubes are far more durable than the glass counterparts in
>>>>>> my
>>>>>> experience.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I bought 3 sets of 572b last year in a test to determine the
>>>>>> actual
>>>>>> life
>>>>>> of the 572b vs. duty cycle because the data for contempary
>>>>>> versions
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the 572b are hard to come by. None of the tubes could reach the
>>>>>> 25
>>>>>> hour
>>>>>> key-down accumulated time before reaching 500w output for the
>>>>>> set.
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> have seen the stories of guys with 500w out on a 25 year old set
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> tubes in a SB200, but that is clearly the excepiton and not the
>>>>>> rule.
>>>>>> The 572b at 1200w out of a set of 4 is really something that can
>>>>>> only be
>>>>>> sustaned in the long term if conditions are perfect and the winds
>>>>>> are at
>>>>>> your back.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So while your mileage may vary, I can say categorically that at
>>>>>> 1200w
>>>>>> out as the goal (meaning net average power, not PEP or peak or
>>>>>> whatever), the 572b set of 4 will do it. But just not for very
>>>>>> long.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My 2 cents anyway. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 73/jeff/ac0c
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> George Knight wrote:
>>>>>>> Thanks to all who contributed. Although there is a lack of
>>>>>>> unanimity in the responses, I think I will go ahead with the
>>>>>>> project. In the event that it turns out to be a total failure,
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> will be quite easy to change the sockets to accept 572B tubes
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> get into the 1200 watt output class.
>>>>>>> '73, George, VE3LTU.
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Amps mailing list
>>>>>>> Amps@contesting.com
>>>>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Amps mailing list
>>>>>> Amps@contesting.com
>>>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Amps mailing list
>>>> Amps@contesting.com
>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
>>>
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>> Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.11/1997 - Release Date:
>>> 03/12/09
>>> 10:38:00
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Amps mailing list
>>> Amps@contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
>>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.11/1997 - Release Date:
> 03/12/09 10:38:00
>
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|