[Amps] Boat Anchor
Joseph DiPietro" <email@example.com
Fri, 23 Aug 2002 16:45:59 -0400
I have been removing various 'unused' circuitry, there is more to go.
Anyway, I am talking with all of you 'experts' in an attempt to avoid doing
something stupid. For example, someone noted the 'dangling wire' near the
tr relay. That wire connects the output of the plate tank to the relay. I
am removing the wire (10ga solid copper with 600V insulation) and replacing
it with the center conductor cut out of a piece of rg-8. GOOD IDEA, OR
STUPID? Your opinions please.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Katz" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "'Joseph DiPietro'" <email@example.com>
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 4:11 PM
Subject: RE: [Amps] Boat Anchor
> Hi Joe,
> It looks like an experimenter's paradise in there. I see connections and
> wires going nowhere -- assume these are rendered superfluous by new and
> added circuitry-? The high-Q parasitic suppressors are not a good thing,
> usually. (They look like little tank coils for a 2m transmitter -- maybe
> will work like them, too.)
> The parasitic suppressors appear to be periliously close to the cooling
> blades, but maybe that's just camera angle. Assume they're in proper
> position when the tubes are in place.
> I can't help but wonder why somebody would go to all this work to
> a circuit that didn't really need any improvement. In my experience (hazy
> memories of 30 years ago, but memories nonetheless) the Mark I wasn't a
> amp, and was improved by splitting out the power supply in the Mark II
> version. Assume somebody added some zener bias diode(s) for the 3-500Z's?
> I think the original 3-400Z's didn't need any. Looks like the mod
> adding some tube pin connections topside of the sockets, kind of
> unconventional -- wonder why that was done?
> Anyway, let us know how it works!
> Steve WB2WIK/6
> "If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough." -
> Mario Andretti