> It is a mistake to apply a commercial broadcast economic model to a ham
> radio station.
I don't disagree at all with this. The point I was trying - however
ineptly - to make is that solid state technology requires a different
approach to traditional tube design.
> A ham is just some guy transmitting for fun infrequently out of his house
> (comparatively speaking, with phone patches, traffic, and other service
work
> the exception). He is mostly concerned with the up-front one-time cost
> since he isn't making money on his station. For hams, tubes continue to
> offer the best watt/<unit of currency> value today. The operating costs
of
> tubes are not that punishing for a ham unless he's running his amp on the
> air for hours every day (I wonder what that's like--I should live so long
to
> find out). This may all certainly change in the near future however.
Again, I don't disagree. But, things are changing. Had surplus Russian tubes
not arrived on the scene and reduced the cost of buying big tubes, the
economics would have changed even more!It's now possible to build PAs in the
500 - 600 watt class for the same sort of cost, and similar, or better
performance as traditional tube amplifiers. Buying new parts in small
quantities, the cost is more-or-less competitive with tubes.
73
Chris
GW4DGU
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|