[AMPS] TL-922

[Don Kessler]

Tom,

An amplifier (TL-922) that previously would go "Bang!", and trash output
bandswitches, short zener bias diodes, etc., no longer goes "Bang!" and
self destructs anymore after the nichrome suppressors are fitted, but
instead works reliably henceforth.

So again, please tell me EXACTLY which (bad, defective, etc.,) component(s)
in a functioning stock TL-922 should be replaced to prevent the amp from
going "Bang!" and self destructing.  I can show you TL-922s where the only
defective component after the event, is the output bandswitch which got
toasted in the big bang.  I would believe that these functioning TL-922s
probably do not have  "defective" components until AFTER the parasitic
event occurs.  Or if you don't believe it to be a parasitic event, then
consider the event occuring when "the monkeys fly out of the TL-922's ass."
 And again, a meager $0.30 worth of wire substituted for the stock
suppressors appear to stop all this nastiness (it has in 14 first-hand
cases).

I personally think the TL-922 is a great amp.  True the HV section could be
a bit stouter, but the quality of the components and the layout of the amp
is far superior to quite a few others out there, including all things
Ameritron.  The '922 chassis is extremely solid, the tube sockets are
top-notch, etc.

73 de Don  (ki6sz)

---------- Forwarded Message ----------
From:   INTERNET:W8JI@contesting.com, INTERNET:W8JI@contesting.com
TO:     (unknown), INTERNET:amps@contesting.com
DATE:   09-07-00 10:21 PM
RE:     Re: [AMPS] TL-922


> What precisely is/are the "bad" components in the stock TL-922 that cause
> instability?  By changing the stock suppressors with nichrome wire (ala
> Rich's description), the problem goes away.  So, please tell me exactly
> which component(s) you would change to cure the stock TL-922.
> 
> 73, Don  (ki6sz)

Bad was a poor choice of words. I replace the defective 
components.

I take it what you are telling me is you can take a non-working 
amplifier, replace only the suppressors and nothing else, and it is 
problem free? Is that what you are saying? Or do I misunderstand 
you?


 
73, Tom W8JI
w8ji@contesting.com

--
FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/amps
Submissions:              amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems:                 owner-amps@contesting.com





----------------------- Internet Header --------------------------------
Sender: owner-amps@contesting.com
Received: from contesting.com (dayton.akorn.net [216.1.128.73])
        by sphmgaab.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-1.9) with ESMTP id
WAA28514;
        Thu, 7 Sep 2000 22:21:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from dayton.akorn.net (dayton.akorn.net [216.1.128.73])
        by contesting.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id e882L2524326;
        Thu, 7 Sep 2000 22:21:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by dayton.akorn.net (TLB v0.10a (1.23 tibbs 1997/01/09
00:29:32)); Thu, 07 Sep 2000 22:20:44 +0000 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200009080220.e882KbC19811@paris.akorn.net>
From: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>
To: amps@contesting.com
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 22:20:07 -0400
Subject: Re: [AMPS] TL-922
Reply-to: W8JI@contesting.com
In-reply-to: <200009072109_MC2-B298-41B4@compuserve.com>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d)
Sender: owner-amps@contesting.com
Precedence: bulk
X-Sponsor: W4AN, KM3T, N5KO & AD1C


--
FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/amps
Submissions:              amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems:                 owner-amps@contesting.com