[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Amps] 3-500Z cool down time

To: Amps group <>
Subject: Re: [Amps] 3-500Z cool down time
From: Catherine James <>
Reply-to: Catherine James <>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 14:04:07 +0000 (UTC)
List-post: <>
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).

Kimberly Elmore <> 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 <>
  To: Amps group <>
  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
 >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. 
 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
 but lower drive and more output.
 73, Bill W6WRT
 Amps mailing list
 Amps mailing list
Amps mailing list
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>