Toll Free
July 15th 03, 05:52 AM
"Frank Gilliland" > wrote in message
...
> In >, "Toll Free"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Skipp is here to dance disco again" > wrote in
> >message ...
> >> : Frank Gilliland > wrote:
> >> :>Actually, the 300A will meet todays spurious emissions ratings.
> >>
> >> : No it won't. Not unless it's heavily modified and used with a big
> >> : filter. You need to update yourself on the current specifications.
> >>
> >> No it probably wont meet current FCC regs as a commercial or amateur
> >> amplifier FOR SALE AS A NEW/CURRENT MODEL.
> >>
> >> Properly operated, it's probably fine for current amateur bands. Same
as
> >> the Dentron, Amp Supply, Galaxy and other vintage sweep tube
> >> amateur amplifiers.
> >
> >
> >
> >Same as using a Swan, Siltronix, etc. on the bands today.
> >
> >It met it then, so its legal now, as long as it doesn't cause undue
> >interference.... Something Frank can't seem to do himself.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> What's a "big filter"..? Like most current tube amplifiers, the more
> >> practical output section would be a Pi-L layout. A Pi-L output doesn't
> >> have to be really big.
> >
> >
> >
> >The last generation 300A amps, and its next generation 350Z amp all used
> >Pi-L outputs.
> >
> >Frank doesn't always know what he talks about, though.
>
> I prefer not to talk about things of which I know little, such as
boatbuiding
> and biochemistry. RF? I know a hell of a lot more than you, Toll. Say,
what
> happened to your 4000+ CBer friends in the greater San Diego area?
>
> >>
> >> :>It was, and still is, a good amateur amplifier that takes either 25
> >watts,
> >> :>or 100+ watts of drive.
> >>
> >> : It's a TV sweep tube amp, designed and built for people that couldn't
> >> : afford an amp with a tube properly designed for power RF. We've been
> >> : through this before,
> >
> >
> >Which tubed amplifiers of the mid and early 70s used a "proper tube"?
>
> There were plenty. Try BAMA.
>
> >And why is it someone who chose to use a Palomar became:
> >
> >"people that couldn't
> >> : afford an amp with a tube properly designed for power RF"
>
> Kinda self-explanatory, don'tcha think? I mean, if you didn't have the
money for
> a Collins, Gonset, Hammarlund or Johnson, and you were too stupid to build
a
> Heathkit, you bought a sweep-tube amp like a Palomar. How do you think
they got
> popular? CBers? Nope -- poor hams.
>
> >Seems if the amp works, at the level designed, and doesn't cause undue
> >interferience, then it is a decent amp.... Regardless of the tube(s)
> >employed.
> >
> >The 300A does so, and continues to this day.
>
> Not according to the FCC. Doesn't meet specs. And it is just as illegal on
the
> CB as any other amp, regardless of whether it was once legal for amateur
service
> or not.
>
> >>
> >> How do you claim to know the owner couldn't afford a different amp..?
Many
> >> owners prefered the smaller desktop footprint and the practical power
> >> gain. Best of all, you could run it using a common 15 amp 117vac house
> >> electrical outlet. Larger power amplifiers often require upgraded AC
> >> service into the shack. Made a lot of condo owners choose the smaller
> >> desktop Sweep tube Amplifiers made by various mfgrs... including
> >> the Palomar brand.
> >>
> >> How about a cost effective mid size amplifier. Palomar even used that
darn
> >> 8950 tube. It along with the common (and current) EL-509/519 and
> >> Maco 2057 tubes are considered Sweep type tubes by convention, but
never
> >> saw a service in TV set. Yet they were/are designed for service in RF
> >> power circuits. Funny how that all works out...
> >
> >
> >Seems funny how Ameritron was using a design very similiar in the 90s.
Must
> >be a cost-effective design that worked well, eh?
>
> The Ameritron's weren't type-accepted for use in even in the US amateur
service.
> They used the "export only" shield.
BULL****. The Ameritron AL-600 was sold in the US for years and years.
They
stopped building it when the tube dried up, reconfigured it, and called it
the AL-811.
>
> >Ameritron only stopped using the tubes when they became NON cost
effective
> >(read this, supply of NOS tubes dried up).
>
> They realized that the legitimate US market was more cost-effective than
the
> other-than-legitimate "export" business. So they began building legitimate
amps.
Again, BULL****. They stopped building them when they couldn't get the
tubes anylonger.
Don't believe me, ask Tom himself. He is a regular on the AMPS forum.
> >Which where the legitamate amps from the 300A / 350Z days?
>
> "Which where..."? There have been plenty of 'legitimate' amps through the
years.
> I can make a very long list of manufacturers that built 'legitimate' amps,
and
> most of them never built a 'sweep-tube' amp. But you already knew that
little
> (but important) tidbit of info, didn't you?
And how many of those same manufacturers also built a sweep tube based amp
or product?
Whoops. Trolling again, arntcha!
Toll_Free
...
> In >, "Toll Free"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Skipp is here to dance disco again" > wrote in
> >message ...
> >> : Frank Gilliland > wrote:
> >> :>Actually, the 300A will meet todays spurious emissions ratings.
> >>
> >> : No it won't. Not unless it's heavily modified and used with a big
> >> : filter. You need to update yourself on the current specifications.
> >>
> >> No it probably wont meet current FCC regs as a commercial or amateur
> >> amplifier FOR SALE AS A NEW/CURRENT MODEL.
> >>
> >> Properly operated, it's probably fine for current amateur bands. Same
as
> >> the Dentron, Amp Supply, Galaxy and other vintage sweep tube
> >> amateur amplifiers.
> >
> >
> >
> >Same as using a Swan, Siltronix, etc. on the bands today.
> >
> >It met it then, so its legal now, as long as it doesn't cause undue
> >interference.... Something Frank can't seem to do himself.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> What's a "big filter"..? Like most current tube amplifiers, the more
> >> practical output section would be a Pi-L layout. A Pi-L output doesn't
> >> have to be really big.
> >
> >
> >
> >The last generation 300A amps, and its next generation 350Z amp all used
> >Pi-L outputs.
> >
> >Frank doesn't always know what he talks about, though.
>
> I prefer not to talk about things of which I know little, such as
boatbuiding
> and biochemistry. RF? I know a hell of a lot more than you, Toll. Say,
what
> happened to your 4000+ CBer friends in the greater San Diego area?
>
> >>
> >> :>It was, and still is, a good amateur amplifier that takes either 25
> >watts,
> >> :>or 100+ watts of drive.
> >>
> >> : It's a TV sweep tube amp, designed and built for people that couldn't
> >> : afford an amp with a tube properly designed for power RF. We've been
> >> : through this before,
> >
> >
> >Which tubed amplifiers of the mid and early 70s used a "proper tube"?
>
> There were plenty. Try BAMA.
>
> >And why is it someone who chose to use a Palomar became:
> >
> >"people that couldn't
> >> : afford an amp with a tube properly designed for power RF"
>
> Kinda self-explanatory, don'tcha think? I mean, if you didn't have the
money for
> a Collins, Gonset, Hammarlund or Johnson, and you were too stupid to build
a
> Heathkit, you bought a sweep-tube amp like a Palomar. How do you think
they got
> popular? CBers? Nope -- poor hams.
>
> >Seems if the amp works, at the level designed, and doesn't cause undue
> >interferience, then it is a decent amp.... Regardless of the tube(s)
> >employed.
> >
> >The 300A does so, and continues to this day.
>
> Not according to the FCC. Doesn't meet specs. And it is just as illegal on
the
> CB as any other amp, regardless of whether it was once legal for amateur
service
> or not.
>
> >>
> >> How do you claim to know the owner couldn't afford a different amp..?
Many
> >> owners prefered the smaller desktop footprint and the practical power
> >> gain. Best of all, you could run it using a common 15 amp 117vac house
> >> electrical outlet. Larger power amplifiers often require upgraded AC
> >> service into the shack. Made a lot of condo owners choose the smaller
> >> desktop Sweep tube Amplifiers made by various mfgrs... including
> >> the Palomar brand.
> >>
> >> How about a cost effective mid size amplifier. Palomar even used that
darn
> >> 8950 tube. It along with the common (and current) EL-509/519 and
> >> Maco 2057 tubes are considered Sweep type tubes by convention, but
never
> >> saw a service in TV set. Yet they were/are designed for service in RF
> >> power circuits. Funny how that all works out...
> >
> >
> >Seems funny how Ameritron was using a design very similiar in the 90s.
Must
> >be a cost-effective design that worked well, eh?
>
> The Ameritron's weren't type-accepted for use in even in the US amateur
service.
> They used the "export only" shield.
BULL****. The Ameritron AL-600 was sold in the US for years and years.
They
stopped building it when the tube dried up, reconfigured it, and called it
the AL-811.
>
> >Ameritron only stopped using the tubes when they became NON cost
effective
> >(read this, supply of NOS tubes dried up).
>
> They realized that the legitimate US market was more cost-effective than
the
> other-than-legitimate "export" business. So they began building legitimate
amps.
Again, BULL****. They stopped building them when they couldn't get the
tubes anylonger.
Don't believe me, ask Tom himself. He is a regular on the AMPS forum.
> >Which where the legitamate amps from the 300A / 350Z days?
>
> "Which where..."? There have been plenty of 'legitimate' amps through the
years.
> I can make a very long list of manufacturers that built 'legitimate' amps,
and
> most of them never built a 'sweep-tube' amp. But you already knew that
little
> (but important) tidbit of info, didn't you?
And how many of those same manufacturers also built a sweep tube based amp
or product?
Whoops. Trolling again, arntcha!
Toll_Free