[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Amps] QRO 2500DX MARK lll 4CX800

To: "Leigh Turner" <>, "'Bob Gibson'" <>
Subject: Re: [Amps] QRO 2500DX MARK lll 4CX800
From: "Carl" <>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 11:08:19 -0400
List-post: <>
Since your Australian power limit is 400W, and I would "assume" you always obey that, then emission life willl be extended. I am still running the original 1986 Eimac 3-500Z's in my LK-500ZC at 1200W as an example of REAL longevity at hard use in contesting and on AM. The RCA 8122's in my 1964 NCL-2000 prototype I converted to 6M never failed but very gradually lost emission and I replaced them at the 700W point about 10 years ago.

The original Eimac 8877 in my early 80's Dentron DTR-2000L still produces 1200W out at about 70W drive. This amp dates back to when 1000W CW and 2000W SSB PEP INPUT were FCC rules so the HV is very conservative.

Other amps in use here use Eimac 8873, 8874, 8875's with the same long life results.

I DO NOT like having to replace tubes by running them hard for no measurable improvement at the receiving end.

OTOH the discussion is about a USA amp which is where the 4CX800A nomenclature (make believe and never registered) was intended to lull owners into believing they could be pushed as could Eimac and other quality brands.

We already see where the GU-84B/4CX1600B amps wound up in the trash heap (or rebuilt with alternatives)and caused manufactures grief and financial losses. This renaming took place by the same fraudlent Svetlana USA group and at the same time.


----- Original Message ----- From: "Leigh Turner" <>
To: "'Carl'" <>; "'Bob Gibson'" <>
Cc: <>
Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2019 8:06 PM
Subject: RE: [Amps] QRO 2500DX MARK lll 4CX800

Yes, these grid and screen dissipation ratings / limits are indeed the
reason why efficacious protection mechanisms in the amplifier design that
respect and conservatively accommodate these dissipation limitations is

Unfortunately one does not have many sourcing options for these
GU74B/4CX800A tetrode tubes nowadays and one has to work with the still
available tubes.

Out of interest my now 20+ year old single GU74B Emtron DX-1 amplifier still
has its original factory shipped tube in it and still meets full these tubes demonstrably have enduring emission and longevity
when operated within their ratings.


-----Original Message-----
From: Carl []
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2019 2:46 AM
To: Leigh Turner; 'Bob Gibson'
Subject: Re: [Amps] QRO 2500DX MARK lll 4CX800

No more robust than any other wimpy tube with a 2W G1 and a 15W G2 rating
and very easy to destroy.

Since the actual rated PD is 600W the later 800W rating is a pure fraud by
Svetlana USA that leads to hams pushing them too hard with a rapid decrease

in emission.

Unlike Eimac, Philips and similar manufactures who design tubes for CCS
service along with plenty of reserve emission to compensate for aging. that
tube and most amateur service Chinese are run at the edge.  And cheap hams
cry constantly.


----- Original Message ----- From: "Leigh Turner" <>
To: "'Bob Gibson'" <>
Cc: <>
Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2019 2:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Amps] QRO 2500DX MARK lll 4CX800

My commiserations over having all three tubes fail like this Bob.

Other than failed or ineffective protection circuits that might have caused
grossly excessive input over-drive to the grids, or an absence of Plate HT
causing a consequential large rise in screen dissipation (and associated
electrode warping and shorting), this scenario is most surprising.

I would very carefully check the efficacy of these important tube protection
mechanisms as the 4CX800A / GU74B tube is a notably robust and rugged one!

Also check the continuity of the 50 Ohm input swamping resistor R607.


-----Original Message-----
From: Amps [] On Behalf Of Bob Gibson via
Sent: Saturday, 30 March 2019 7:08 AM
Subject: [Amps] QRO 2500DX MARK lll 4CX800

After sending all three tubes down to be checked at D&C Electronics all
three tubes came back bad..the test showed..that once the tube comes up to
operating temperature there is a resistive cathode to grid short present
possibly indicating a warped grid or screen.. My question is why would all
three come back the same..I knew one tube was bad but to have all tubes test
the same was a little odd..Anyone have any ideas..

Bob W5RG

Amps mailing list

This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.

Amps mailing list

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