----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>
To: <amps@contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 12:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Amps] parasitic oscillation techniques
> ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
>
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:02:43 -0400, "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>The discussion is about the 3-500 and the SB-220 in particular. Why add
>>other tubes that are inherently stable or do you just want to water down
>>the
>>discussion?
>
> REPLY:
>
> It was you who quoted the Eimac engineer about the damage Rich's mods
> caused to
> masses of 8877's.
>
> I'm still waiting for an explanation - or even a guess - as to how any of
> Rich's
> mods could damage a tube.
>
> 73, Bill W6WRT
Do you have anyone that can help you look up Eimacs # and dial it for you?
I didnt realize that you are handicapped.
And since you like to be selective in your reply references with creative
editing I'll include the following which you must have accidentally forgot.
----------------------------------------------------
As to why? I'll repeat for the last time. If you are really that interested
then call Eimac. I didnt ask and it wasnt offered.
Ive personally never claimed a damage potential and simply dispute his
parasitics theory as the cause of every bang event in a SB-220 in
particular. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
-----------------------------------------------------
Carl
KM1H
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|