Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+Eimac\s+3500Z\s+Vs\.\s+RFParts\s+or\s+Taylor\s+Tubes\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+Eimac\s+3500Z\s+Vs\.\s+RFParts\s+or\s+Taylor\s+Tubes\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [Amps] Eimac 3500Z Vs. RFParts or Taylor Tubes (score: 1): Author: "Javier" <yv5mbx@arrl.net>; Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:14:11 -0400; Hi, I am curious abt the high street prices of Eimac 3500Z tubes against Chineese Version. Is my understanding that chineese tubes get not as hot as Eimac and provide abt 100 watts of extra power. If; /archives//html/Amps/2005-02/msg00477.html (7,231 bytes)
2. Re: [Amps] Eimac 3500Z Vs. RFParts or Taylor Tubes (score: 1): Author: "Will Matney" <craxd1@ezwv.com>; Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:40:20 -0500; My experience with them has been that when the Chinese version first came out, they were pure junk. So many people complained and got burned that they did in fact change them. Now, they are just as g; /archives//html/Amps/2005-02/msg00479.html (8,703 bytes)
3. [Amps] Eimac 3500Z Vs. RFParts or Taylor Tubes (score: 1): Author: R.Measures <r@somis.org>; Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 07:52:48 -0800; From: R. Measures <r@somis.org> Date: February 14, 2005 7:49:59 AM PST To: "Javier" <yv5mbx@arrl.net> Subject: Re: [Amps] Eimac 3500Z Vs. RFParts or Taylor Tubes On Feb 14, 2005, at 7:14 AM, Javier w; /archives//html/Amps/2005-02/msg00480.html (8,335 bytes)
4. Re: [Amps] Eimac 3500Z Vs. RFParts or Taylor Tubes (score: 1): Author: Joe Isabella <n3ji@yahoo.com>; Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:42:16 -0800 (PST); I was told by the RF Parts people that the Taylors and the RF Parts branded tubes are the same. The only difference is $10 and an extended second prorated year on the warranty. I got the RF Parts tub; /archives//html/Amps/2005-02/msg00490.html (7,998 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]