Given that ceramic tubes appear to last longer on the shelf with less leakage
than glass, it's a shame that there isn't a ceramic tube in the
price/performance range of the 3-500Z. It would be well worth paying, say, 10%
more for ceramic. But the actual cost multiplier is much higher than that, so
glass tubes will continue to rule at the low end (i.e., far below legal limit).
73,
Cathy
N5WVR
--------------------------------------------
Kimberly Elmore <cw_de_n5op@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
True enough; I was simply
statingthat the 3CX1200 is a ceramic replacement for a glass
envelope. It's a fine tube, though it requires a fair
bit more drive. That is, aparently, the price paid for a
high grid dissipation rating. It's easier to drive when
running 4 kV B+, though. At that voltage, I never fail to
acieve full output with a 100 W rig on any band.
Kim N5OP
From: Bill Turner <dezrat@outlook.com>
To: Amps group <amps@contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 9:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Amps] 3-500Z cool down time
------------ ORIGINAL
MESSAGE ------------(may be snipped)
On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 20:48:40 -0500, Kim
wrote:
>The 3CX1200 is a
ceramic version of the 3-1000Z. I have an amp that uses one
and it's ready in under 10 s.
>Kim
N5OP
REPLY:
Yes, but that's a very
expensive tube. I was thinking of a ceramic
3-500Z for the same price as glass.
For what they are asking you
might as well get an 8877. Different
socket
but lower drive and more output.
73, Bill W6WRT
_______________________________________________
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
|