I don't believe that for a minute if you compare apples to apples. Most of the tube designs have been significantly "over engineered". That is, the tubes have excess plate dissipation for the power
Modern SS devices in the 8877 power class are are not ready for prime time in linear service. IMD, gain/bandwidth, and derating for our use are still a problem. Ive been playing with a couple of Free
I agree with Joe Look at the broadcast industry where the TX is usually 24/7 CCS operation. Solid state has replaced tubes on MW up to 2 megawatts in power. ON VHF FM transmitters go to 40 Kw with so
What you are saying is tube amps would fail if they were not "over engineered" but assuming you are correct and they are, then they are in fact more robust so reality trumps theory. 3-500z with 20 w
Using the bc industry as an analogy for hams is flawed. broadcasters have a revenue stream from which they can pay $$$ for top of the line s.s. gear. it is cost effective for them for several reasons
The relatively new Elecraft KPA500, specified at 500W ICAS, doesn't go out the door unless it makes 600W on 160M-6M, and it's happy running 600W into a matched load with keydown modes. I run it that
Well, not as flawed as one might think. SS is now less expensive than the almost impossible to find tube TXs. I don't think anyone makes a tube BC TX below 10 KW and you have to go to Eastern Europe
You are fixated on 10, 40, 50 KW broadcast gear as some sort of barometer or defining standard for ham radio. I love AM medium wave broadcasting and the people in it to death but there is little over
Rob, just out of curiosity, what is the key down time on the 2.5 KW THP? 73, Joe K2XX _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com
Which is a plus for tubes. And the protection circuitry for a SS amp is extremely elaborate. Add to that the aging of the transistors. On an hour by hours basis, transistors "operated well within the
No, that's an apples to oranges comparison since you want a solid state amplifier to be capable of 65% "headroom". A well designed amplifier using 8 VRF-2933 or a pair of the Motorola/ Phillips 1200
I have been using two bridged SG-500 amps for years without trouble. Output is 1000 W on 160, 1100 W from 80 to 15 meters, and 890 W on 12 and 10. (I have modified the T/R control to eliminate the ti
No, it's exactly what I expect out of a tube amp, and I have one that will do it. So it's a valid comparison if I want the same thing out of SS. I don't want a 1200 watt amp that has to be derated fo
Joe, This is getting interesting. Please explain below statement. I know the FCC is kind-of backward, but why is it impractical? In a message dated 4/29/2012 8:43:25 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, lists
BC band. I do not know the exact power per device but since the newer devices run around a KW, I would say a 100 in a 100KW TX. _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@
8 x VRF-2933 or 2 x 1200 W Motorola/Phillips "blocks" are not a 1200W amplifier. 2 x VRF-2933 do 600W brick on the key in the KPA-500. Both configurations I listed will do 2 KW CCS with reserve gain
I use an automatic tuner that memorizes frequencies and I can run a THP 2.5K on any frequency without doing anything. The tuner even switches antennas for me. ________________________________________
Naw, it's a plus for conservative design. One thing that seems to be missed in this discussion about home brewing amps was clearly pointed in a comment in this thread -- the key to solid state amp de
But, I'd have to build a system to use them as components including band switching with LP filters. I was told for my own use, I could import, or build an amp and It does not have to be FCC approved.
It helps to have a computer systems design background<:-)) Although many systems are running right at edge of the device limits. Even with the best heat transfer using the latest heat transfer compou