Drake Final Tubes
 

The thought came to me the other day whle thinking about the cost of 6JB6's
nearly $100 for a set; I paid $18.00 for a matched set of three at AES back
in the 1970's and I got plenty of spares. Why did Drake use those cheap ass
sweep tubes in their final instead of the old standard 6146 to begin with?

Sure, back then it seemed in vogue to use sweep tubes in amateur gear (yea,
sure, Swan gear...) but as I recall, we thought that Drake was kinda cheesy
to use those tubes anyway. I gonna stick my neck out and say Drake
engineering wasn't the end all that the youngsters think nowadays.

(Yes... I have a complete Drake station (including amplifier)---the whole
line-up in pristine, vitrually unused condition in crisp factory cartons
including accessories, catalogs and a handful of the right-angle Switchcraft
microphone (black cap) and key (red cap) plugs that Drake originally
supplied not that PL-whatever. Original owner---me---so it's not sour
grapes.)

RG

Compare the price of 6146's and sweep tubes the time the T4X was on the
drawing board, and I bet you'll find your answer!
.....Dave
"RadioGuy" wrote in message
...
The thought came to me the other day whle thinking about the cost of
6JB6's
nearly $100 for a set; I paid $18.00 for a matched set of three at AES
back
in the 1970's and I got plenty of spares. Why did Drake use those cheap
ass
sweep tubes in their final instead of the old standard 6146 to begin with?

Sure, back then it seemed in vogue to use sweep tubes in amateur gear
(yea,
sure, Swan gear...) but as I recall, we thought that Drake was kinda
cheesy
to use those tubes anyway. I gonna stick my neck out and say Drake
engineering wasn't the end all that the youngsters think nowadays.

(Yes... I have a complete Drake station (including amplifier)---the whole
line-up in pristine, vitrually unused condition in crisp factory cartons
including accessories, catalogs and a handful of the right-angle
Switchcraft
microphone (black cap) and key (red cap) plugs that Drake originally
supplied not that PL-whatever. Original owner---me---so it's not sour
grapes.)

RG

Dave Edwards wrote in message
...
Compare the price of 6146's and sweep tubes the time the T4X was on the
drawing board, and I bet you'll find your answer!
....Dave
"RadioGuy" wrote in message
...
The thought came to me the other day whle thinking about the cost of
6JB6's
nearly $100 for a set; I paid $18.00 for a matched set of three at AES
back
in the 1970's and I got plenty of spares. Why did Drake use those cheap
ass
sweep tubes in their final instead of the old standard 6146 to begin
with?

Sure, back then it seemed in vogue to use sweep tubes in amateur gear
(yea,
sure, Swan gear...) but as I recall, we thought that Drake was kinda
cheesy
to use those tubes anyway. I gonna stick my neck out and say Drake
engineering wasn't the end all that the youngsters think nowadays.

I don't recall the 6146 was that expensive. We could find them at the
hamfest, surplus and they were routinely given away from one ham to
another... heck, Heathkit used them, Collins used them... (not to mention
the ham and commercial gear in the 60's) and to think that Drake had to use
a sweep tubes in gear that many of us thought was somewhat superior to
Collins. By the 1970's the 6146 was so plentiful that they really weren't
an issue. It was the sweep tube that turned many of us off---but then the
Drake name seemingly overshadowed whatever disappointment we had. Remember
how you hated to tune up from fear of destroying those things. Gee... I
remember those sweep tube CB amplifiers that fed the CB craze of the 70's.
What was it... 12 6DQ6's in parallel or something gosh...

RG

There may be more to it than that. The advantage of sweep tubes was that
they worked very well at lower voltage. For the same power level, the 6146
required more voltage. Also remember this was before the 6146B arrived.

I am not a collector of Drake equipment (and I am not a fan of sweep tubes),
but didn't the TR-3 arrive first? Three tubes were used for a lot of power.
The use of the sweep tubes there may have set the foundation for later
transmitters and transceivers.

I remember a conversation with a friend some 45 years ago. He was lamenting
that the Hallicrafters HT-32 used the 6146, because it was so wimpy and
actually had lower plate dissipation than the 807 it was supposed to
replace. He returned the HT-32 and bought an old Harvey Wells Bandmaster.
Then worked the world on 10 meters with that rig.

73, Colin K7FM

The world AND all TV sets for miles in all directions? That was my friend's
experience... Though it was an interesting shaped radio compared to more common
shapes.

COLIN LAMB wrote:

I remember a conversation with a friend some 45 years ago. He was lamenting
that the Hallicrafters HT-32 used the 6146, because it was so wimpy and
actually had lower plate dissipation than the 807 it was supposed to
replace. He returned the HT-32 and bought an old Harvey Wells Bandmaster.
Then worked the world on 10 meters with that rig.

73, Colin K7FM

RadioGuy wrote:

The thought came to me the other day whle thinking about the cost of 6JB6's
nearly $100 for a set; I paid $18.00 for a matched set of three at AES back
in the 1970's and I got plenty of spares. Why did Drake use those cheap ass
sweep tubes in their final instead of the old standard 6146 to begin with?

If you have all that gear in that kind of shape,
$100 invested in the correct tubes seems like a very good idea.

RadioGuy wrote:
The thought came to me the other day whle thinking about the cost of 6JB6's
nearly $100 for a set; I paid $18.00 for a matched set of three at AES back
in the 1970's and I got plenty of spares. Why did Drake use those cheap ass
sweep tubes in their final instead of the old standard 6146 to begin with?

Because they were just so phenomenally cheap. Sweep tubes were plentiful
and inexpensive and compared with similar power output transmitting tubes
it was hard to justify the cost in a non-ruggedized installation.

Sure, back then it seemed in vogue to use sweep tubes in amateur gear (yea,
sure, Swan gear...) but as I recall, we thought that Drake was kinda cheesy
to use those tubes anyway. I gonna stick my neck out and say Drake
engineering wasn't the end all that the youngsters think nowadays.

It was built to a pricepoint like everything else ever has been. A somewhat
higher pricepoint than the Swan gear, mind you, but it was not built without
design constraints.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

David Stinson wrote:
RadioGuy wrote:

The thought came to me the other day whle thinking about the cost of 6JB6's
nearly $100 for a set; I paid $18.00 for a matched set of three at AES back
in the 1970's and I got plenty of spares. Why did Drake use those cheap ass
sweep tubes in their final instead of the old standard 6146 to begin with?

If you have all that gear in that kind of shape,
$100 invested in the correct tubes seems like a very good idea.

Yes, but his point is that originally they were a few bucks each at the
drug store. These aren't exactly the most robust tubes around, and nobody
today would EVER think of using one in a new design.

Back in the seventies, people were rebuilding old surplus gear to take
sweep tubes because they were so cheap and plentiful. Today people are
rebuilding ham gear built for sweep tubes to take transmitting tubes.
It all goes back again.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

I don't recall the 6146 was that expensive. We could find them at the
hamfest, surplus and they were routinely given away from one ham to
another... heck,

What you say is true for a ham in need of just replacing a pair of =
tubes. But it would not have been true at all for Drake.

A company producing ham gear cannot depend on tubes found at a good =
price here and there. They have to place a contract with a tube =
manufacturer who can guarantee delivery in time and in the required =
quantities. Prices are then market prices, not surplus prices.

73

Antonio I0JX

FWIW, I just looked in a 1970 Newark catalog. 6146As were about $4,
and 6146Bs about $5. Smaller sweep tubes went around $3 and larger
ones around $4.

COLIN LAMB wrote in message
. net...
There may be more to it than that. The advantage of sweep tubes was that
they worked very well at lower voltage. For the same power level, the
6146
required more voltage. Also remember this was before the 6146B arrived.

I am not a collector of Drake equipment (and I am not a fan of sweep
tubes),
but didn't the TR-3 arrive first? Three tubes were used for a lot of
power.
The use of the sweep tubes there may have set the foundation for later
transmitters and transceivers.

I remember a conversation with a friend some 45 years ago. He was
lamenting
that the Hallicrafters HT-32 used the 6146, because it was so wimpy and
actually had lower plate dissipation than the 807 it was supposed to
replace. He returned the HT-32 and bought an old Harvey Wells Bandmaster.
Then worked the world on 10 meters with that rig.

73, Colin K7FM

Fine Colin... but some of us used the HP-23 Heathkit power supply for the
Drake tranceivers---Heathkit used the 6146 for virtually all of their
transmitters and tranceivers. I myself used the HP-23 for powering my TR-3
with no problems; of course, the jack had to be changed and re-wired. The
HP-23 delivered 700 volts under load---admittedly a bit higher than what
Drake wanted for their sweep tubes; 650 volts.

I think the 6146 pre-dates the Drake rigs. I believe the 6146 came out in
the early 1950's along with the 5763 which supposed to be it's driver (Drake
used the 12BY7A as a driver). I remember the RCA ads for those tubes on the
back of QST.

RG

Mike Silva wrote in message
ups.com...
FWIW, I just looked in a 1970 Newark catalog. 6146As were about $4,
and 6146Bs about $5. Smaller sweep tubes went around $3 and larger
ones around $4.

Excellent... thank you for looking up the sales price of the 6146 and sweep
tubes.

RG

Actually, I think Drake was pretty clever. The tubes cost roughly half as
much as a 6146 and had about the same capabilities. Drake was smart enough
to run them within their ratings, unlike most other manufacturers that used
horizontal output tubes and tried to sqeeze every last watt out of them.
Add to that the fact that (according to tests results in the Bill Orr
Handbook) they actually had less distortion than the 6146 in linear
service, and it looks like a darn good decision.

I still remember a friend of mine running his TR4 full bore on 20 meters
RTTY back in the 1970's. He never had a problem.

73,
Darrell, WA5VGO

If things get really tough, try what I've done. I have some 12JB6's and
some 18JB6's. The final filaments can be re-directed and run via an
external xformer. It works fine. However, I just bit the bullet and
bought several pairs from reasonable sources. Given the number of hours
I use the Drake C-line each month or year, I'm sure I'll be OK until I
"check out of the net".....

Darrell wrote in message
01...
Actually, I think Drake was pretty clever. The tubes cost roughly half as
much as a 6146 and had about the same capabilities. Drake was smart enough
to run them within their ratings, unlike most other manufacturers that
used
horizontal output tubes and tried to sqeeze every last watt out of them.
Add to that the fact that (according to tests results in the Bill Orr
Handbook) they actually had less distortion than the 6146 in linear
service, and it looks like a darn good decision.

I still remember a friend of mine running his TR4 full bore on 20 meters
RTTY back in the 1970's. He never had a problem.

73,
Darrell, WA5VGO

According to my Radio Handbook (Orr) 18th. edition (1970) on page 383:

"To date, the use of inexpensive TV-type sweep tubes as linear amplifers in
amateur SSB gear has been acceptable, regardless of the rather high level of
distortion inherent in these tube types."

I checked the spare parts price list for my TR-4 (January 1, 1977) on the
price of the 6JB6---$4.83. This seems to be in the same price class as the
6146 not to mention that the 6146 tubes were commonly available as surplus
from military or commercial services.

I also operated RTTY with my TR-3 but I had a blower on my tubes.

RG

You miss the point. Drake didn't buy their tubes from the surplus market.
They bought them bulk packaged from the manufacturer. It did make sence
from their standpoint and it didn't compromise the product. From a
boatanchor standpoint I wish they had used 6146's. But when put in their
shoes in 1963, it was a good business decision.

Most horizontal output tubes have distortion products comparable to the
6146 if you keep the voltage and power down to reasonable levels. Third
order products are typically in the -25 Db range which is right in there
with the 6146.

73,
Darrell, WA5VGO




"RadioGuy" wrote in
:


Darrell wrote in message
According to my Radio Handbook (Orr) 18th. edition (1970) on page 383:

"To date, the use of inexpensive TV-type sweep tubes as linear
amplifers in amateur SSB gear has been acceptable, regardless of the
rather high level of distortion inherent in these tube types."

I checked the spare parts price list for my TR-4 (January 1, 1977) on
the price of the 6JB6---$4.83. This seems to be in the same price
class as the 6146 not to mention that the 6146 tubes were commonly
available as surplus from military or commercial services.

I also operated RTTY with my TR-3 but I had a blower on my tubes.

RG

Darrell wrote:

You miss the point. Drake didn't buy their tubes from the surplus market.
They bought them bulk packaged from the manufacturer. It did make sence
from their standpoint and it didn't compromise the product. From a
boatanchor standpoint I wish they had used 6146's. But when put in their
shoes in 1963, it was a good business decision.

Most horizontal output tubes have distortion products comparable to the
6146 if you keep the voltage and power down to reasonable levels. Third
order products are typically in the -25 Db range which is right in there
with the 6146.

73,
Darrell, WA5VGO


Another point of view: If a ham needed new final tubes he could buy
them at any TV shop or parts house, but the 6146 wasn't always available
over the counter without a wait.

--
?

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Noone has raised the issue of how long 6JB6s last.

If they are used with caution they last for a long time, but if one =
tries to squeeze the last watt out of them (and the 6JB6s invite you to =
do so, thanks to their strong cathode emission) they can last for a VERY =
short time.

The 6146 have a lower cathode emission and do not then lend themsleves =
to be squeezed so badly as the 6JB6s. So there is less harm to =
inadvertently destroy them.

To my experience the Sylvania 6JB6s (those sold by Drake as spares) =
perform better than the GE 6JB6s, and are are easier to neutralize. The =
RCA 6JB6s, luckily much less common, were no good.

73

Tony, I0JX

------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Vernucci, I0JX US call: K0JX
50-MHz beacon: 50.004 KHz FSK 10W 5/8 vertical antenna
home page: http://www.qsl.net/i0jx
e-mail: k0jx {at} amsat {dot} org
------------------------------------------------------
"RadioGuy" ha scritto nel messaggio =
...
The thought came to me the other day whle thinking about the cost of =
6JB6's
nearly $100 for a set; I paid $18.00 for a matched set of three at =
AES back
in the 1970's and I got plenty of spares. Why did Drake use those =
cheap ass
sweep tubes in their final instead of the old standard 6146 to begin =
with?
=20
Sure, back then it seemed in vogue to use sweep tubes in amateur gear =
(yea,
sure, Swan gear...) but as I recall, we thought that Drake was kinda =
cheesy
to use those tubes anyway. I gonna stick my neck out and say Drake
engineering wasn't the end all that the youngsters think nowadays.
=20
(Yes... I have a complete Drake station (including amplifier)---the =
whole
line-up in pristine, vitrually unused condition in crisp factory =
cartons
including accessories, catalogs and a handful of the right-angle =
Switchcraft
microphone (black cap) and key (red cap) plugs that Drake originally
supplied not that PL-whatever. Original owner---me---so it's not sour
grapes.)
=20
RG
=20

Antonio Vernucci wrote in message
...
I don't recall the 6146 was that expensive. We could find them at the
hamfest, surplus and they were routinely given away from one ham to
another... heck,

What you say is true for a ham in need of just replacing a pair of tubes.
But it would not have been true at all for Drake.

A company producing ham gear cannot depend on tubes found at a good price
here and there. They have to place a contract with a tube manufacturer who
can guarantee delivery in time and in the required quantities. Prices are
then market prices, not surplus prices.

73

Antonio I0JX

Well, the tube (6146) was in constant production during Drakes operation
(about 30 years) so it would imply that they were very common and
cheap---practically every other amateur equipment manufacturer was using the
6146. Large numbers were used by the military and commercial services. My
gosh... if Heath was using them they certaintly couldn't have been that
prohibitive to design with. So it begs the question why Drake was using
them.

RG

Antonio Vernucci wrote in message
...
Noone has raised the issue of how long 6JB6s last.

If they are used with caution they last for a long time, but if one tries to
squeeze the last watt out of them (and the 6JB6s invite you to do so, thanks
to their strong cathode emission) they can last for a VERY short time.

The 6146 have a lower cathode emission and do not then lend themsleves to be
squeezed so badly as the 6JB6s. So there is less harm to inadvertently
destroy them.

To my experience the Sylvania 6JB6s (those sold by Drake as spares) perform
better than the GE 6JB6s, and are are easier to neutralize. The RCA 6JB6s,
luckily much less common, were no good.

73

Tony, I0JX

Absolutely Tony... I share the same experiences as you. I've recently
listened to the youngsters getting their hands on the Drakes but not knowing
how to tune the pi-network with the consequence that they destroy the 6JB6's
in short order---and having to put out $100 for another set. Those sweep
tubes weren't very forgiving... If I remember, we never really worried
about hurting the 6146's as they seemed to keep on working. Furthermore,
correct me if I am wrong, I don't think we ever considered having matched
6146's like we did with the sweep tubes.

RG

Michael A. Terrell wrote in message
...
Darrell wrote:

You miss the point. Drake didn't buy their tubes from the surplus
market.
They bought them bulk packaged from the manufacturer. It did make sence
from their standpoint and it didn't compromise the product. From a
boatanchor standpoint I wish they had used 6146's. But when put in their
shoes in 1963, it was a good business decision.

Most horizontal output tubes have distortion products comparable to the
6146 if you keep the voltage and power down to reasonable levels. Third
order products are typically in the -25 Db range which is right in there
with the 6146.

73,
Darrell, WA5VGO


Another point of view: If a ham needed new final tubes he could buy
them at any TV shop or parts house, but the 6146 wasn't always available
over the counter without a wait.

--
?

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Well... maybe if you were using a single tube that would be the case. The
Drake gear (besides gear from other manufacturers) used more than one tube
requiring them to be matched. I recall Drake sold matched sets of tubes
after checking their cathode currents in a test fixture. The tubes were
them marked and collected into sets for sale. I recall seeing the number
'18' on the envelope of a matched set of 6JB6's. What '18' meant I just
don't know. I also recall some folks back then claim the the tubes were
also matched on the basis of plate capacitance. I'd look at the matched
sets that I have but they have been in sealed packages for nearly 30 years
so I hate to open them.

The 6146's weren't a problem... we always seemed to get them if we needed
them---they seemed to be everywhere. They were sort of like antenna
insulators---if you needed them someone had them and would give them to you.
I never bought a 6146... One fellow gave me a couple of boxes of 6146W's
(yea... they were in the white boxe with the black print on the side ;-). A
lot of manufacturers were using the 6146's in their designs and the tubes
had been around a long time---for decades.

RG

Okay, you've convinced me. Drake had no idea what they were doing.

73,
Darrell, WA5VGO







"RadioGuy" wrote in
:


Michael A. Terrell wrote in message
...
Darrell wrote:

You miss the point. Drake didn't buy their tubes from the surplus
market.
They bought them bulk packaged from the manufacturer. It did make
sence from their standpoint and it didn't compromise the product.
From a boatanchor standpoint I wish they had used 6146's. But when
put in their shoes in 1963, it was a good business decision.

Most horizontal output tubes have distortion products comparable to
the 6146 if you keep the voltage and power down to reasonable
levels. Third order products are typically in the -25 Db range
which is right in there with the 6146.

73,
Darrell, WA5VGO


Another point of view: If a ham needed new final tubes he could
buy
them at any TV shop or parts house, but the 6146 wasn't always
available over the counter without a wait.

--
?

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Well... maybe if you were using a single tube that would be the case.
The Drake gear (besides gear from other manufacturers) used more than
one tube requiring them to be matched. I recall Drake sold matched
sets of tubes after checking their cathode currents in a test fixture.
The tubes were them marked and collected into sets for sale. I
recall seeing the number '18' on the envelope of a matched set of
6JB6's. What '18' meant I just don't know. I also recall some folks
back then claim the the tubes were also matched on the basis of plate
capacitance. I'd look at the matched sets that I have but they have
been in sealed packages for nearly 30 years so I hate to open them.

The 6146's weren't a problem... we always seemed to get them if we
needed them---they seemed to be everywhere. They were sort of like
antenna insulators---if you needed them someone had them and would
give them to you. I never bought a 6146... One fellow gave me a
couple of boxes of 6146W's (yea... they were in the white boxe with
the black print on the side ;-). A lot of manufacturers were using
the 6146's in their designs and the tubes had been around a long
time---for decades.

RG

I agree. There is little, IF ANY, correlation between the "consumer" price
of components and the commercial (manufacturers') pricing. Besides the
quantity discount, there are other factors: One is that Drake may have, and
probably did, buy other tube types from the same supplier (which may not
have been the tube manufacturer!) That can leverage prices downward on one,
a few, or all types. Other components come into play too, for different
tube types may not use the same sockets, and may require different designs
for stability, etc so that a particular tube might require, say, a more
expensive bypass capacitor (just an example). Then there might have been
power supply consideratons involving the different voltages/currents for the
different types. These decisions are made in the early stages of design,
and usually revolve around what is the cheapest way to achieve the desired
result. Even if, at a later date, experience factors dictate using a
different tube, I doubt that (in this discussion case) the cost/benefit
tradeoff would favor going to the 6146. In order to know whether Drake was
smart, we need to know all the decision factors and conditions at the time.
Of course, hindsight always has 20-20 vision.

In the good OLD tradition of Hamming, those who so desired could do their
own engineering redesign. Yank out the sweeps and associated
circuitry/components if you didn't like 'em and build out with 6146s.

73,
Dube K4DWW






"RadioGuy" wrote in message
...

Antonio Vernucci wrote in message
...
I don't recall the 6146 was that expensive. We could find them at the
hamfest, surplus and they were routinely given away from one ham to
another... heck,

What you say is true for a ham in need of just replacing a pair of tubes.
But it would not have been true at all for Drake.

A company producing ham gear cannot depend on tubes found at a good price
here and there. They have to place a contract with a tube manufacturer who
can guarantee delivery in time and in the required quantities. Prices are
then market prices, not surplus prices.

73

Antonio I0JX

Well, the tube (6146) was in constant production during Drakes operation
(about 30 years) so it would imply that they were very common and
cheap---practically every other amateur equipment manufacturer was using
the
6146. Large numbers were used by the military and commercial services.
My
gosh... if Heath was using them they certaintly couldn't have been that
prohibitive to design with. So it begs the question why Drake was using
them.

RG

Its very simple. POWER sells. Sweep tubes have that extra output for the
bigger price tag. A $9.00 sweep tube in the 70's cost a dealer $3.00. Cant
imagine what the low cost would be to a manufacturer. Bottom line for all
companies......PROFIT.......PROFIT........PROFIT.

--
Regards,
Gary...
"RadioGuy" wrote in message
...
The thought came to me the other day whle thinking about the cost of
6JB6's
nearly $100 for a set; I paid $18.00 for a matched set of three at AES
back
in the 1970's and I got plenty of spares. Why did Drake use those cheap
ass
sweep tubes in their final instead of the old standard 6146 to begin with?

Sure, back then it seemed in vogue to use sweep tubes in amateur gear
(yea,
sure, Swan gear...) but as I recall, we thought that Drake was kinda
cheesy
to use those tubes anyway. I gonna stick my neck out and say Drake
engineering wasn't the end all that the youngsters think nowadays.

(Yes... I have a complete Drake station (including amplifier)---the whole
line-up in pristine, vitrually unused condition in crisp factory cartons
including accessories, catalogs and a handful of the right-angle
Switchcraft
microphone (black cap) and key (red cap) plugs that Drake originally
supplied not that PL-whatever. Original owner---me---so it's not sour
grapes.)

RG

"RadioGuy" wrote in message
...
The thought came to me the other day whle thinking about the cost of
6JB6's
nearly $100 for a set; I paid $18.00 for a matched set of three at AES
back
in the 1970's and I got plenty of spares. Why did Drake use those cheap
ass
sweep tubes in their final instead of the old standard 6146 to begin with?

Sure, back then it seemed in vogue to use sweep tubes in amateur gear
(yea,
sure, Swan gear...) but as I recall, we thought that Drake was kinda
cheesy
to use those tubes anyway. I gonna stick my neck out and say Drake
engineering wasn't the end all that the youngsters think nowadays.

(Yes... I have a complete Drake station (including amplifier)---the whole
line-up in pristine, vitrually unused condition in crisp factory cartons
including accessories, catalogs and a handful of the right-angle
Switchcraft
microphone (black cap) and key (red cap) plugs that Drake originally
supplied not that PL-whatever. Original owner---me---so it's not sour
grapes.)

RG


When the Drake vacuum tubes rigs were designed, the sweep tubes were being
mass produced for the TV market and WERE very cheap.

However, there may have been another reason.
If I remember correctly, the advertised power output of the TR3/TR4 and the
T4X, etc was higher than the 180 watts input/100 watts output that was
typical from a pair of 6146's. A pair or trio of sweep tubes is capable of
a much high PEP rating than is a pair of 6146's - albeit maybe not for
long....


Thus there was a marketing race at the time.
Each manufacturer was claiming higher and higher power levels for their
"bareful" rigs.
Swan was surely the champ with that - claiming up to 700 watts input and
about 500 watts output for some of their rigs.
Drake didn't go so far but probably still wanted to claim more power than
the 180 watts input/100 watts output of Collins and Heathkit.

National also used sweep tubes in their transceivers. For example, they used
the 6GJ5 in their NCX-3 and the NCX-5 and at first were conservative with
their rating, also claiming just 180 watts in/about 100 watts out. Later
they joined the PEP race with their NCX-500, etc.

Thus part of the answer may simply be marketing.

73,

Doug/WA1TUT

You mentioned that Heathkit used 6146's in virtually all of their
gear. That is a valid statement, but they used 6GE5 sweep tubes in
the lower price-point HW-series monobanders, including the ones for
MARS/CAP. It was a purely a matter of economics, I think. Retail
price aside, there had to have been more manufacturing volume on the
sweep tubes, because just about every family had a TV set.

I now have a 4B-line, and also a bunch of HW-series rigs. The 6GE5's
are fairly inexpensive even today, compared to 6146A's or W's or the
later GE 6146B's that Heathikit blessed.

73,
Ted KX4OM

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 00:37:15 GMT, "RadioGuy"
wrote:


Antonio Vernucci wrote in message
...
I don't recall the 6146 was that expensive. We could find them at the
hamfest, surplus and they were routinely given away from one ham to
another... heck,

What you say is true for a ham in need of just replacing a pair of tubes.
But it would not have been true at all for Drake.

A company producing ham gear cannot depend on tubes found at a good price
here and there. They have to place a contract with a tube manufacturer who
can guarantee delivery in time and in the required quantities. Prices are
then market prices, not surplus prices.

73

Antonio I0JX

Well, the tube (6146) was in constant production during Drakes operation
(about 30 years) so it would imply that they were very common and
cheap---practically every other amateur equipment manufacturer was using the
6146. Large numbers were used by the military and commercial services. My
gosh... if Heath was using them they certaintly couldn't have been that
prohibitive to design with. So it begs the question why Drake was using
them.

RG

Ted Bruce wrote in message
...
You mentioned that Heathkit used 6146's in virtually all of their
gear. That is a valid statement, but they used 6GE5 sweep tubes in
the lower price-point HW-series monobanders, including the ones for
MARS/CAP. It was a purely a matter of economics, I think. Retail
price aside, there had to have been more manufacturing volume on the
sweep tubes, because just about every family had a TV set.

I now have a 4B-line, and also a bunch of HW-series rigs. The 6GE5's
are fairly inexpensive even today, compared to 6146A's or W's or the
later GE 6146B's that Heathikit blessed.

73,
Ted KX4OM

Yup... for sure... I forgot about those monobanders. I even had one
myself---the HW-32A.

Well, you raise the question that's been on my mind for quite awhile---just
what was the production on the 6146? I don't have the slightest idea how to
find that tidbit. They were well in production before TV became
commonplace---maybe 10 years or so. Just what was the production figure on
the 6JB6? To be honest the 6JB6 doesn't sound like a common tube. I recall
the horizontal deflection amplifier tubes like the 6DQ5 and 6DQ6 but looking
in my 1961 RCA tube handbook I don't seen the 6JB6 listed.

I recall, Kenwood had 6146's in their TS-520, correct me if I'm wrong but
wasn't it a 6146 of Japanese production ( I remember they had the shiny
chrome finish on the metal surfaces that typified some of the Japanese
parts)?

RG

DOUGLAS wrote in message
k.net...

"RadioGuy" wrote in message
...
The thought came to me the other day whle thinking about the cost of
6JB6's
nearly $100 for a set; I paid $18.00 for a matched set of three at AES
back
in the 1970's and I got plenty of spares. Why did Drake use those cheap
ass
sweep tubes in their final instead of the old standard 6146 to begin
with?

Sure, back then it seemed in vogue to use sweep tubes in amateur gear
(yea,
sure, Swan gear...) but as I recall, we thought that Drake was kinda
cheesy
to use those tubes anyway. I gonna stick my neck out and say Drake
engineering wasn't the end all that the youngsters think nowadays.

(Yes... I have a complete Drake station (including amplifier)---the
whole
line-up in pristine, vitrually unused condition in crisp factory cartons
including accessories, catalogs and a handful of the right-angle
Switchcraft
microphone (black cap) and key (red cap) plugs that Drake originally
supplied not that PL-whatever. Original owner---me---so it's not sour
grapes.)

RG


When the Drake vacuum tubes rigs were designed, the sweep tubes were being
mass produced for the TV market and WERE very cheap.

However, there may have been another reason.
If I remember correctly, the advertised power output of the TR3/TR4 and
the
T4X, etc was higher than the 180 watts input/100 watts output that was
typical from a pair of 6146's. A pair or trio of sweep tubes is capable
of
a much high PEP rating than is a pair of 6146's - albeit maybe not for
long....


Thus there was a marketing race at the time.
Each manufacturer was claiming higher and higher power levels for their
"bareful" rigs.
Swan was surely the champ with that - claiming up to 700 watts input and
about 500 watts output for some of their rigs.
Drake didn't go so far but probably still wanted to claim more power than
the 180 watts input/100 watts output of Collins and Heathkit.

National also used sweep tubes in their transceivers. For example, they
used
the 6GJ5 in their NCX-3 and the NCX-5 and at first were conservative with
their rating, also claiming just 180 watts in/about 100 watts out. Later
they joined the PEP race with their NCX-500, etc.

Thus part of the answer may simply be marketing.

73,

Doug/WA1TUT

Well said Doug... I forgot about that---there was a power race back in the
70's. Some of us did get 'big eyes' when Swan came out with the 500. And
now that you mentioned it, I remember some of us looking at the Drake's 300
watt (input) tranceiver as a selling point ( I think the power race ended
somewhat with the advent of solidstate and the fairly uniform 100 watt
specification).

Drake had a problem meeting their power claim later for the TR-4C/CW/CW+RIT
(I don't know about the older models), resulting from the changes to FCC
regs regarding spectral purity (97.73). Drake had a notice that the final
could not be loaded to more that 350 ma. so as to remain within the new
spec. The older tune-up procedure reached maximum output with a plate
current of 380 to 500 ma. I am not going to venture to say if the 6JB6's
had anything to do with having to go to a reduced output as opposed to using
the 6146's in their place regarding spectral purity but I sure would like to
hear comments on this point.

I like the note in the operators manual regarding tune-up:

3-7. TUNE UP. Do not allow plate current to exceed 0.1 Amperes for more
that 6 seconds with the PLATE control not tuned for minimum plate current or
maximum output.

CAUTION Failure to observe the warning above will result in rapid final
amplifier tube deterioration due to excessive plate dissipation.

RG

Hi, Gang

The 6146 was introduced by RCA in Jan 1952 QST (full page ad).
It was advertised as the big brother to the 2E26, which had been around
since about 1946.

73,
Ed Knobloch


RadioGuy wrote:
Well, you raise the question that's been on my mind for quite
awhile---just
what was the production on the 6146? I don't have the slightest idea how to
find that tidbit. They were well in production before TV became
commonplace---maybe 10 years or so.

RadioGuy wrote:
Well, you raise the question that's been on my mind for quite
awhile---just
what was the production on the 6146? I don't have the slightest idea how
to
find that tidbit. They were well in production before TV became
commonplace---maybe 10 years or so.

Well here is how you find stuff

Go to this URL:
http://www.google.com/

Type in 6146 vacuum tube (Web Search)
Get several responses -- weed thru them
In the second down is Issue 6 Articles
which sez
the type 6146, was new in 1952.

Wanna see a photo of a 6146
Use google and search images for 6146
Wanna see a pinout
use google and search images for 6146 vacuum tube


Please make a note of it. Google that is -- can find damn near anything.
Including you -- see search groups

--
CL -- I doubt, therefore I might be !

Caveat Lector wrote in message
news:ZzG1e.1302$k57.230@fed1read07...

RadioGuy wrote:
Well, you raise the question that's been on my mind for quite
awhile---just
what was the production on the 6146? I don't have the slightest idea
how
to
find that tidbit. They were well in production before TV became
commonplace---maybe 10 years or so.

Well here is how you find stuff

Go to this URL:
http://www.google.com/

Type in 6146 vacuum tube (Web Search)
Get several responses -- weed thru them
In the second down is Issue 6 Articles
which sez
the type 6146, was new in 1952.

Wanna see a photo of a 6146
Use google and search images for 6146
Wanna see a pinout
use google and search images for 6146 vacuum tube


Please make a note of it. Google that is -- can find damn near anything.
Including you -- see search groups

--
CL -- I doubt, therefore I might be !

Dear CL

Thank you sincerely for confirming my search procedure on the 6146
thermionic valve.

True to your word, I have already found the data that you mentioned in your
reply. I also managed to download the relevant pages from the RCA tube
handbook (1964) concerning the 6JB6, 6JB6A and 6146 for later study at my
leisure.

I still have yet to find the production data of the 6146 (how many
manufactured)---my two hour long Google search still has come to naught.
Similarly, production data for the 6JB6 (how many manufactured) has escaped
me as well and would be of additional interest in this running thread.

I agree most heartily, I have made a note of the Google search engine---as a
matter of fact, I have made it my home page for nearly ten years!

Fraternally yours,
RG

Edward Knobloch wrote in message
news:gXF1e.23644$I16.22572@trndny03...
Hi, Gang

The 6146 was introduced by RCA in Jan 1952 QST (full page ad).
It was advertised as the big brother to the 2E26, which had been around
since about 1946.

73,
Ed Knobloch

Thank you Ed for the information. I knew the 6146 went back to the early
50's or so but I didn't know it was 1952; I did find tube specifications
dated May 1952 though. I had absolutely no idea that the 2E26 went back to
1946---that is interesting!

I remember those RCA ads on the back of QST; they probably would look real
nice in the radio-room after being mounted and framed. I recall one that
proudly advertised the 5763, 2E26 and 6146 as the ideal tube line-up for a
transmitter.

RG

"RadioGuy" wrote in message
...

Caveat Lector wrote in message
news:ZzG1e.1302$k57.230@fed1read07...

RadioGuy wrote:
Well, you raise the question that's been on my mind for quite
awhile---just
what was the production on the 6146? I don't have the slightest idea
how
to
find that tidbit. They were well in production before TV became
commonplace---maybe 10 years or so.

Well here is how you find stuff

Go to this URL:
http://www.google.com/

Type in 6146 vacuum tube (Web Search)
Get several responses -- weed thru them
In the second down is Issue 6 Articles
which sez
the type 6146, was new in 1952.

Wanna see a photo of a 6146
Use google and search images for 6146
Wanna see a pinout
use google and search images for 6146 vacuum tube


Please make a note of it. Google that is -- can find damn near anything.
Including you -- see search groups

--
CL -- I doubt, therefore I might be !

Dear CL

Thank you sincerely for confirming my search procedure on the 6146
thermionic valve.

True to your word, I have already found the data that you mentioned in
your
reply. I also managed to download the relevant pages from the RCA tube
handbook (1964) concerning the 6JB6, 6JB6A and 6146 for later study at my
leisure.

I still have yet to find the production data of the 6146 (how many
manufactured)---my two hour long Google search still has come to naught.
Similarly, production data for the 6JB6 (how many manufactured) has
escaped
me as well and would be of additional interest in this running thread.

I agree most heartily, I have made a note of the Google search engine---as
a
matter of fact, I have made it my home page for nearly ten years!

Fraternally yours,
RG


Oopps a case of confusion on my part

When you sed "I don't have the slightest idea how to find that tidbit."

I thought you were talking about the first production date.

So apolgies from here.

Interesting you had google for 10 years as goggle sez:

Two Stanford Ph.D. students, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, founded Google in
1998.

As I sed Caveat Lector

RadioGuy wrote:

I still have yet to find the production data of the 6146 (how many
manufactured)---my two hour long Google search still has come to naught.
Similarly, production data for the 6JB6 (how many manufactured) has escaped
me as well and would be of additional interest in this running thread.

It might be tough to find the data on the total number of 6146's
produced since RCA was not the only manufacturer of the tubes. RCA,
Sylvania, GE, at least one Japanese firm and possibly others produced
the tubes. Likewise, a number of manufacturers produced 6JB6's.

Dave K8MN

RadioGuy wrote:

Well, the tube (6146) was in constant production during Drakes operation
(about 30 years) so it would imply that they were very common and
cheap---practically every other amateur equipment manufacturer was using the
6146.

Not quite. Yaesu used sweep tubes widely as did Swan, WRL, National,
Heathkit (in some transceivers) and even Hallicrafters (in some
transceivers).

Large numbers were used by the military and commercial services. My
gosh... if Heath was using them they certaintly couldn't have been that
prohibitive to design with. So it begs the question why Drake was using
them.

They likely got really good prices on them. In addition, a pair of
6146's was good for 80-100w output. A pair of 6JB6's in the Drake T4-XC
was good for about 140w. Swan and WRL pushed a pair of other tubes to
even higher output.

Dave K8MN

In article 0dJ1e.1323$k57.178@fed1read07,
"Caveat Lector" wrote:

Interesting you had google for 10 years as goggle sez:

Two Stanford Ph.D. students, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, founded Google in
1998.

There were other search engines before Google, some of them are still going.

HTH, HAND, etc.

Chris.
(The new "Google Groups Beta", on the other tentacle, needs to be
mercilessly stamped upon - I've *never* seen a worse redesign of
a search engine than that pile of rubbish.)

--
"With its diet of keycaps, mouse-balls and Ethernet terminators, the
Aardvax can be a potentially serious pest in computer installations"
-- Tanuki in a.s.r

RadioGuy wrote:

I still have yet to find the production data of the 6146 (how many
manufactured)---my two hour long Google search still has come to naught.
Similarly, production data for the 6JB6 (how many manufactured) has escaped
me as well and would be of additional interest in this running thread.

I don't know how one could track down the numbers, but I've been thinking about
the relative abundance of these tubes.

The 6JB6 was a Novar version of the 6GW6 octal sweep tube. In the early 60's
RCA was introducing Novar sweep tubes, some of which were electrically the same
as earlier types, and some of which were new. GE was doing the same thing with
12-pin Compactron sweep tubes. The 6JB6 was meant for black-and-white TVs, but
by the mid 60's, comparatively few B/W sets used transformer power supplies --
most were "portable" sets with series-string heaters, and would have used, for
example, a 17JB6 in the horizontal output. So the 6JB6 was probably not a
huge seller, compared to the 17JB6, or to the 6-volt color tubes like the
6JE6 which were used a lot.

The 6146 was originally designed by RCA in response to George Grammer, W1DF,
QST technical editor, so it came about because of amateur radio, but it
was used in large numbers in GE and Motorola VHF 2-way radios.

There were a lot more TV sets than 2-way radios made, but it could be
that the relatively small number of transformer-powered black-and-white
TVs in the 60s meant that 6JB6 production was fairly low. I wouldn't
be suprised if there were more 6146's (of all variations) made than
6JB6's.

Ted Zateslo, W1XO

The 6146 was originally designed by RCA in response to George
Grammer, W1DF,
QST technical editor, so it came about because of amateur radio, but
it
was used in large numbers in GE and Motorola VHF 2-way radios.

I've never heard that before. Where can I read more about this?

73,
Mike, KK6GM

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 23:36:01 GMT, "RadioGuy" wrote:

I agree most heartily, I have made a note of the Google search engine---as a
matter of fact, I have made it my home page for nearly ten years!

If you consider seven to be almost ten, perhaps -- Google started in mid-1998.

-- Larry

In article .com,
Mike Silva wrote:
The 6146 was originally designed by RCA in response to George
Grammer, W1DF,
QST technical editor, so it came about because of amateur radio, but
it
was used in large numbers in GE and Motorola VHF 2-way radios.

I've never heard that before. Where can I read more about this?

73,
Mike, KK6GM

Mike,
I read it in a QST from sometime in the late 60's -- it wasn't a feature
article but a "Stray", I think, about the millionth 6146 (or some
other notable number, I think it was a million) produced by RCA. I
just did a quick search of the QST article database on the ARRL website
with no luck, but if I find the article, I'll post something.

I don't know if there are any other cases of a tube being introduced
especially because of an amateur need (although RCA certainly marketed
the 6146 to land-mobile and other markets right away). It was envisioned
as a sort of "modern 807" in function, although it's obvious that it's
a scaled-up 2E26 if you look at the tubes.

73,
Ted, W1XO