Brace yourself for grad school economics theory lesson 3501.
Why doesn't Command and QRO get together?
The HAM MARKET has become a dwindling marketplace. In conversation with
David Sumner of the league a few years ago regarding the average age of Ham
Operators, Radio is growing in age point 8 (.8) years per year. Don't look
now but that is almost 1 year per year. Eventually we will all be dead and
the hobby along with it.
It's no longer 1980 where the hobby was growing from converted CBers at
almost doubling rates per year.
There is almost NO ROOM financially in the market to develop new ham
products. Companies that have been in business for years are folding or
being bought up by one or two individuals and turned into conglomerations of
products (Like MFJ).
Where it almost makes no sense to have a company employing 10 people to
produce four $2500.00 amplifiers a week. Paying wages, building and all
other expenses. It makes sense to have 250 products under one roof and
build as the market requires.
Now why doesn't Command and QRO Tech get together. Because they have
already shrunk to garage sized operations operated by one or two individuals
wiring up amplifiers. Why would you want to become 1 company and lose your
one product and give that money to who is now your competitor?
A lot of my work was in price theory with an interest in Monopoly pricing
and the ESOTERIC market. I have theories on what is happening in many of the
marketplaces.
The market that has intrigued me with awe is the ESOTERIC Stereo market.
There's a couple guys out there installing glass RF transmitting tubes in
chromed and polished chassis and getting $80,000 for them. There are only
maybe 20 people in the world that would buy these things, but for a guy
sitting in his garage STUDIO assembling them, that generates $1.6 million
dollars for him. He tolls along at his trade with demand for his ART
through the roof and has one price... REALLY F'en HIGH.
Where the ham market has guys like you... you know who you are.. Runs a
$250 amp, won't touch it unless it is almost free at the flea market. Then
there's the guy who has to have the absolute latest thing, price is no
object, it just has to be the best. Sometimes unfortunately I'm one of
those guys.
Economic Price theory completely falls apart in the esoteric market. Here
is a product the demand goes UP the HIGHER the price is. But you don't
actually produce for the demand as that would drive the price down. You
produce only what it takes to make a living and keep the demand through the
roof.
Another place where price theory falls apart is in an economy of shortage.
Here the last produced unit controls 100% of the market. GAS is one of
those products. Demand nearly outstrips the supply, running on the ragged
edge of shortage. The price hovering around $3.20 a gallon. Pure genius.
FYI, If we stopped purchasing fuel for 1 week. The price would be $2.00 a
gallon, but they have a captive market and WE ARE TOO STUPID as a people to
not unionize and coordinate. THE USA PEOPLE SHOULD ALL GO ON STRIKE..
Everybody stay home and see what the prices do. And I mean everybody. Make
the world look like it was one of those end of the world movies.
There would be so much gas and diesel backed up the gas companies would S***
within a few days.
Harley Davidson (im also a scooter guy) inadvertently did almost the same
thing through its inability to produce 200,000 motorcycles a year. Their
stock was going through the roof, demand was high, the BIKER mystique was in
full plume. They finally doubled their production just in time for 9/11 and
a total crash in our economy.
The shortage of gas would normally drive up demand for alternative
transportation, helping Harley, but not in this case. Notice how many kids
you see on LITTLE VESPA like scooters these days? They aren't on $19,000
Harleys.
Now HD is in deep trouble. They will have to close plants eventually, I
called that in 2001, but the mentality of the company won't allow that. SO I
SOLD MY STOCK FAST...
I just bought a new 2007 bike last Saturday. Walked in, said hi to my buddy
the sales guy and said what do you have left of 2007's? This one here...
OK... ZERO down sign and ride, at 4.99% interest for 60 months. Let's just
give away bikes... You wanna 2008? What color do you want? The dealership
choices look just about like when I bought my first HD in 1979 the week I
graduated from the U.
I had just walked into the Ford dealer three weeks ago and bought a new van
for my company... ZERO down, 4.9% money for 5 years sign and drive... Why
not, they can't sell anything in this economy!
I'm starting to ramble here. But amateur radio is a funny little market. It
is destined to have only a small handful of manufacturers supplying the
shrinking ranks. The good news is those few manufacturers like MFJ will be
able to supply us. BUT at radically increasing prices.
What is scary is inadvertently ham manufactures (Not because they understand
Economics) but are realizing esoteric pricing. Why should a USA
manufacturer bust his hump worrying about 25 employees when he can build 5
units and make himself a great living? Let the Chinese get all the mass
production. Well this mentality is killing the USA manufacturing business.
We are now a nation of consumers.
As a market becomes ESOTERIC it falls down the backside of the demand curve
and the prices RISE sharply. If there is still a need of even ZERO DEMAND
the price to produce and sell is not demand driven but a motivational issue
for the manufacturer.
For instance, want a big amp? Give me a $10,000 and I'll make one. Yawn,
but I'm not in the mood to build one today sorry. Oh you'll give me
$20,000? Ok well, I think I'm in the mood next Tuesday... $30,000 here let
me get outta bed and we can talk a little more about that amp.
I predict all 1500 Watt class ham amps will be in the $5000 price range
within 5 years. In ten there will be us homebuilders and the $25K market...
That's when I will be producing amps if I'm not already dead.
If this doesn't happen I will B+ myself just so you know I stand by my
predictions and you can bank on them.
Now everybody send me $10.00. I'll send you my paypal account address.
BOB DD
-----Original Message-----
From: amps-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:amps-bounces@contesting.com] On
Behalf Of Edwin Karl
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 8:21 AM
To: amps@contesting.com
Subject: [Amps] Multiple Model Numbers
Like many manufacturers, MFJ undoubtedly wants to compete in all areas. So
models for every one using the more popular tubes in the amps.
Now, if you examine the design closely, the output tube module is the only
change (other than the front panel) in the three high power amplifiers. Sam
Box, wires HV supply interior layout. They have modularized the amplifiers
which I always felt was very clever.
One of my considerations is the cost of a replacement amplifier devices
(tubes). A pair of 3-500s is its cheaper than the other choices, that
includes the QRO Command units and their tubes. All are lots more than the
$300 that 3-500s cost.
I'm a low budget kind of guy so that is a consideration.
By the way, anyone know how come Command and QRO who seem to have close by
addresses don't get together?
ed K0KL
----- Original Message -----
From: <amps-request@contesting.com>
To: <amps@contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 11:00 AM
Subject: Amps Digest, Vol 55, Issue 68
> Send Amps mailing list submissions to
> amps@contesting.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> amps-request@contesting.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> amps-owner@contesting.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Amps digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Ameritron amp purchase decision questions (Scott Manthe)
> 2. Re: Ameritron amp purchase decision questions (shack)
> 3. Re: Ameritron amp purchase decision questions
> (Robert Dorchuck W6VY)
> 4. Re: Ameritron amp purchase decision questions] (W2XJ)
> 5. Re: Gassy Tubes/Technology Museum looking for artifacts] (W2XJ)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:54:16 -0400
> From: Scott Manthe <scott.manthe@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Amps] Ameritron amp purchase decision questions
> To: R Atkins <rusty_atkins@yahoo.com>, Amps@contesting.com
> Message-ID: <46AA0718.1090701@arrl.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Of those choices, I'd go with the AL-80B or AL-572. I've had both and
> both were decent amps, although I had some trouble with the 572. If you
> go that route, I'd wire the transformed to get about 2.5 kV HV, rather
> than the normal 2.8-3 kV, because the Chinese 572Bs don't like 3 kV.
>
> Nobody pays $3500 for a AL-1500 or AL-1200. Whatever someone pays,
> they're not paying for the extra 200 watts, they're paying for the extra
> 500 or 1000 watts, whether for headroom or actual output power.
>
> R Atkins wrote:
> > Without getting into the "why would anybody pay $3500 for the
AL-1200/1500 for 200 watts more?" questions, let me ask...
> >
> > Why would anybody pay $500 more for the AL-800 than the AL-572 when it
has slightly lower power output and the tubes cost 9 times as much?
> >
> > .. and why would anybody pay only $100 less for 1000 rather than a 13000
watt amp when the tubes cost 4 times as much?
> >
> > I'm sure I'm overlooking something here, but not sure what.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Rusty
> > K0FE
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
____________________________________________________________________________
________
> > Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search
> > that gives answers, not web links.
> > http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC
> > _______________________________________________
> > Amps mailing list
> > Amps@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 08:12:19 -0700
> From: "shack" <noddy1211@sbcglobal.net>
> Subject: Re: [Amps] Ameritron amp purchase decision questions
> To: <Amps@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <006301c7d060$87920500$0201a8c0@shack>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> The reason I have the AL-1500 is because it takes less than 60 watts of
> drive for 1500 watts on most bands, this save running the modern 100
> watt exciters flat out. Your right no one pays 3500 for it, more like
> 2600. As you mention below it is nice to have the headroom, better to
> run the 8877 at less rated max power than run a pair of 3-500's flat
> out.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> \
> Of those choices, I'd go with the AL-80B or AL-572. I've had both and
> both were decent amps, although I had some trouble with the 572. If you
> go that route, I'd wire the transformed to get about 2.5 kV HV, rather
> than the normal 2.8-3 kV, because the Chinese 572Bs don't like 3 kV.
>
> Nobody pays $3500 for a AL-1500 or AL-1200. Whatever someone pays,
> they're not paying for the extra 200 watts, they're paying for the extra
>
> 500 or 1000 watts, whether for headroom or actual output power.
>
> R Atkins wrote:
> > Without getting into the "why would anybody pay $3500 for the
> AL-1200/1500 for 200 watts more?" questions, let me ask...
> >
> > Why would anybody pay $500 more for the AL-800 than the AL-572 when it
> has slightly lower power output and the tubes cost 9 times as much?
> >
> > .. and why would anybody pay only $100 less for 1000 rather than a
> 13000 watt amp when the tubes cost 4 times as much?
> >
> > I'm sure I'm overlooking something here, but not sure what.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Rusty
> > K0FE
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ____________
> > Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search
> > that gives answers, not web links.
> > http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC
> > _______________________________________________
> > Amps mailing list
> > Amps@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Amps mailing list
> Amps@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 08:30:05 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Robert Dorchuck W6VY <w6vy@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Amps] Ameritron amp purchase decision questions
> To: Amps@contesting.com
> Message-ID: <400225.60603.qm@web53910.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Not any more - the AL1200 and AL1500 are $2899 or more at
> all the major radio stores (Texas Towers, HRO, AES, etc).
>
> The best bang for the buck is probably the AL-80B.
>
> Bob W6VY
>
> --- shack <noddy1211@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Your right no one pays 3500 for it, more like> 2600.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 11:41:40 -0400
> From: W2XJ <W2XJ@nyc.rr.com>
> Subject: Re: [Amps] Ameritron amp purchase decision questions]
> To: amps@contesting.com
> Message-ID: <46AA1234.8060308@nyc.rr.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> To a degree you are looking at apples and oranges. The AL 572 uses 4
> tubes, the RF parts replacement cost is $144 to $239 -depending on the
> quality - not $60. The Al 80 Tube cost is $139 to $159 While you can
> tube the AL-800 for $459. The real difference is in how you want to
> operate. If you are only operating SSB than the differences are features
> and tube preference. You should do some research into the future
> availability the tubes. The most expensive of the batch - the 3cx800A7
> is still a current Eimac product.
>
> If you are interested in other modes than there is a bigger difference.
> The 80B is rated 500 watts RTTY (or many digital modes), The AL-800 is
> rated 700 watts RTTY and has better key down specs. The AL-572 does not
> have a listed RTTY rating. This is not just the tube capability it is
> also the power supply rating. I have a Kenwood Linear with a 3-500
> final. It will be replaced by either an AL-1500 or a very robust solid
> state amp. I am still looking at those options. Since I like digital and
> CW, I want and AMP that will sit key down at 1500 watts output for a
> long time without problems.
>
> If you only operate sideband or don't care if your digital and CW power
> is reduced than your choice might be different. Of course you also need
> to look at the required driving power of the amps. There is no benefit
> of having a robust amplifier if your transceiver can not drive it in
> digital modes.
>
>
> R Atkins wrote:
> > I'm looking over all of the ameritron amps and having trouble
understanding something... a quick breakdown reveals the following (from
their web site)
> >
> >
> >
> > AL-80B: 1000 watts,
> > tube cost $249. $1399 list
> >
> >
> > AL-572: 1300 watts,
> > tube cost $60. $1495 list
> >
> >
> > AL-800: 1250 watts, tube cost $535. $1995 list
> >
> > Without getting into the "why would anybody pay $3500 for the
AL-1200/1500 for 200 watts more?" questions, let me ask...
> >
> > Why would anybody pay $500 more for the AL-800 than the AL-572 when it
has slightly lower power output and the tubes cost 9 times as much?
> >
> > .. and why would anybody pay only $100 less for 1000 rather than a 13000
watt amp when the tubes cost 4 times as much?
> >
> > I'm sure I'm overlooking something here, but not sure what.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Rusty
> > K0FE
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 11:42:20 -0400
> From: W2XJ <W2XJ@nyc.rr.com>
> Subject: Re: [Amps] Gassy Tubes/Technology Museum looking for
> artifacts]
> To: amps@contesting.com
> Message-ID: <46AA125C.5010905@nyc.rr.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> It was mentioned earlier in the thread that the 7th pin was to prevent
> 807s from being plugged in by mistake.
>
>
>
> Karl-Arne Markstr?m wrote:
> > It appears that the date quoted on the German web-site for the 1625 was
> > wrong.
> >
> > In the 1942 edition of the "RCA Guide for Transmitting Tubes" that
> > went to press
> > in October/November 1941 the 1625 was included and
> > was described as "Similar to 807 but has 12.6 V heater ... Especially
> > Useful in Aircraft Transmitters"
> >
> > So the 1625 was around before Pearl Harbor.
> >
> > Any reasons for RCA to choose the 7-pin base for the 1625 were not
> > mentioned, and they are probably buried deep into the sediments of
> > corporate logic. My guess is as good as anyone elses.
> >
> > Regarding the 8018, it seems to be an interesting variation of the
> > 807.
> > I found some variants, one with a normal phenolic base but quoting a
> > higher transconductance than the "regular" 807, and two with ceramic
> > bases, the RAF VT-60 and VT-60A.
> >
> > The electrode system in the VT-60 shown at http://www.tubecollector.
> > org/vt60.htm
> > appears to be somewhat "skinnier" than the regular 807. If this may
> > have affected the VHF performance is uncertain.
> >
> > 73/
> >
> > Karl-Arne
> > SM0AOM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----Ursprungligt meddelande----
> > Fr?n: g3rzp@g3rzp.wanadoo.co.uk
> > Datum: Jul 27, 2007 11:20:22 AM
> > Till: amps@contesting.com
> > ?rende: Re: [Amps] Gassy Tubes/Technology Museum looking for artifacts
> >
> >
> >>Wild guess: to prevent plugging a 6.3v filament tube in a 12.6v
> >
> > socket?
> > Maybe 807's were also used in other applications in that era.<
> > It seems a bit illogical, because there were 6 and 12 volt octal
> > tubes with the same base connections - 6K7, 12K7, 6SG7, 12SG7 etc.
> > Further back, there were 2.5 volt and 6.3 volt tubes on the same UX
> > base - 2B7 and 6B7 come to mind. So why go to the bother for 1625s,
> > when they needed more metal for the two extra pins? And the quantity of
> > 1625s made meant that must have been a fair weight of brass for those
> > two extra pins.
> > 807s were around pre war, and there was one of the early RAF VHF
> > transmitters used something called an 8018, which my father told me was
> > an 807 selected for more output at 120MHz - he actually instructed on
> > that equipment when he was in the RAF. He said it was awful speech
> > quality, using the device as a sort of linear with low level grid
> > modulation on the preceding frequency multiplier, and running grid
> > current in the 8018.
> > 73
> > Peter G3RZP
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Amps mailing list
> Amps@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
>
>
> End of Amps Digest, Vol 55, Issue 68
> ************************************
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.22/923 - Release Date: 7/27/07
6:01 PM
>
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|