AJ Lake wrote:



The rest of the transceiver industry (other than you) apparently
thinks tube embedded HF transceivers are quite obsolete for a wide
variety of reasons. Else they would be manufacturing and selling them.
Even ham magazines print mostly solid state articles using modern
solid state parts, which is right since hams should learn to use
modern technology. When they do print a tube article it's usually
described as nostalgia.

Except the Russians. They were still using tube gear in their military
back in the mid 80s. Not susecptible to EMP (electromagnetic pulse)
from a nuke going off. They may STILL be using tubes...I'm out of the
loop since leaving the military in the late 80s...

Probably one reason there aren't more tube projects in QST, etc. is that
nobody is left who wants to learn an "obsolete" technology and the old
timers aren't going to bother writing about them because all they would
hear is bitching about how someone wrote an article on old technology
and wasted the pages in QST, etc. Just a guess.

Scott
N0EDV

On Sep 22, 8:32�pm, Scott wrote:
AJ Lake wrote:

The rest of the transceiver industry (other than you) apparently
thinks tube embedded HF transceivers are quite obsolete
for a wide
variety of reasons. Else they would be manufacturing
and selling them.

There are several reasons you don't see much manufactured tube gear,
such as a "modern" version of the TS-520S.

The first reason is cost. Getting tubes and tube-type parts made in
the quantities needed would be more expensive than using solid-state.
Manufacturers can't use parts found at hamfests/rallys/on eBay, and
gearing up to have stuff made custom is expensive and chancy. The
complexity of the rig in ways such as needing both high and low
voltage supplies adds to the cost, too.

The second reason is size.

The third and most important reason is that tubes have become electro-
politically incorrect. Admitting that an old technology can do
something - anything - better than a new one just rubs people the
wrong way. Putting a 7360 in the front end of a "modern" transceiver
would be an admission that there has been a better solution around for
decades, and a lot of folks don't want to admit that.

As a case in point, look at the Elecraft K2. When it was introduced
back in 1999, it blew away much more expensive rigs in many
performance criteria. Yet its hardware design is much simpler than
almost anything else on the market that comes close to its
performance. Worse, it turns the usual marketing ideas upside down in
that the basic rig is QRP and CW only *kit*, with 100W, SSB and many
other features as add-on options.

The conventional wisdom of 1999 said there was no market for such a
rig. But with almost no advertising over 6000 have been sold. And the
product line has grown in several directions since 1999, including the
K3, which has sold over 1500 units.

Even ham magazines print mostly solid state articles
using modern solid state parts,

How many complete multiband multimode transceiver projects have you
seen in US ham magazines in the past 10 or 20 years?

which is right since hams should learn to use
modern technology.

But who decides what is "modern"?

Is SSB "modern"? It was first used on the air in the 1920s, first used
by hams in the early 1930s, and has been commonly used by hams for 60-
odd years. Almost no other service uses SSB anymore.

Is AM "modern"? It was first used on the air in 1900, and by 1906 was
being heard across the Atlantic. It was common by the 1920s.

How about FM? It's only a couple decades newer than AM. Repeaters were
in common use in the land mobile services in the 1950s.

RTTY dates back to WW2, and although the mechanical teleprinters have
been replaced by computers the coding and FSK methods used are
basically unchanged for half a century plus.

Most of the technologies we hams use have long been abandoned by other
services, or are simply kept alive because of the large installed base
of users - which is slowly dwindling.

When they do print a tube article it's usually
described as nostalgia.

You mean history.

Except the Russians. �They were still using tube gear in their
military
back in the mid 80s. �Not susecptible to EMP (electromagnetic
pulse)
from a nuke going off. �They may STILL be using tubes...I'm out of the loop since leaving the military in the late 80s...

EMP was one reason, but there were others. A big one was that they had
the industrial capacity to make high quality tubes in huge numbers,
but not semiconductors, so the solid-state was reserved for where
nothing else would work.

Probably one reason there aren't more tube projects in QST, etc. is that
nobody is left who wants to learn an "obsolete" technology and
the old
timers aren't going to bother writing about them because all they
would
hear is bitching about how someone wrote an article on old
technology
and wasted the pages in QST, etc. �Just a guess.

Not exactly.

QST is a general-purpose magazine; the technical stuff largely goes to
QEX., which was created just for that purpose because the QST staff
got and keeps getting complaints that QST is "too technical" (!).

Way back in 1989 a magazine called "Electric Radio" appeared, and is
still going strong. It's a small mag that specializes in hollow-state
gear, but there's plenty of interest and homebrewing going on.

Most of all, the internet has made it possible to put far more info
out there than could fit in a magazine, without the cost and bother of
printing and postage. Even I have a webpage (google my call) with a
picture and description of my shack and rig. The resources out there
are incredible; the main problem is getting through it all!

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:

There are several reasons you don't see much manufactured tube gear,
such as a "modern" version of the TS-520S.

The first reason is cost.

Agreed. Tranceivers of today are generally much less costly (and have
many more features) than the tube gear of the past. Progress is good.

The second reason is size.

Agreed. My 100W mobile rig sits on my dashboard. Try that with the
tube gear of the past. Progress is good.

The third and most important reason is that tubes have
become electro-politically incorrect.

Tubes are electro-politically incorrect?? Now that is funny. The
conspiracy theory? Black helicopters.... 8-O

As a case in point, look at the Elecraft K2...
it blew away much more expensive rigs in many performance criteria.

How many tubes do they use to get this performance?

But with almost no advertising over 6000 have been sold.

Have you contacted them and suggested your 7360 tube front end idea
for use in the next model of the K2? How long do you think it would
take for them to stop laughing...

On Sep 22, 11:48*pm, AJ Lake wrote:
wrote:
There are several reasons you don't see much manufactured tube gear,
such as a "modern" version of the TS-520S.
The first reason is cost.

Agreed. Tranceivers of today are generally much less costly (and have
many more features) than the tube gear of the past. Progress is good.

Yes, amateur HF transceivers are generally less expensive to buy new
when you adjust for inflation. But at the same time there is far less
really-inexpensive new gear, and working on it yourself is much more
involved. Plus many "older" SS rigs are difficult to repair because
they used custom parts for which the only source is another rig of the
same model. A ~50 year old tube rig can be easier to fix up than a ~25
year old SS rig for these reasons.

There is also the fact that in many situations it's better to have
good basic performance rather than "features". Many "modern" rigs
include lots of "features" because they are easy and inexpensive to
include, but lack basic performance that was common 40+ years ago.

So while there is progress in cost and features, it comes at a price
in other areas.

The second reason is size.

Agreed. My 100W mobile rig sits on my dashboard. Try that with the
tube gear of the past. Progress is good.

But simply making a rig small isn't always progress. For mobile/
portable, small is good, but in the ham shack it can be a bother
because the displays are hard to read, the controls tiny, and many
functions are buried layers-deep in menus.

I'd rather have a rig with a decent front panel than one that fits in
a shirt pocket.

The third and most important reason is that tubes have
become electro-politically incorrect.

Tubes are electro-politically incorrect?? Now that is funny. The
conspiracy theory? Black helicopters.... *8-O

No, it's a fact. Your response proves it.

As a case in point, look at the Elecraft K2...
it blew away much more expensive rigs in many performance criteria.

How many tubes do they use to get this performance?

None - for the reasons listed above.

You ever use one? I have. They're very good.

But with almost no advertising over 6000 have been sold.

Have you contacted them and suggested your 7360 tube front end idea
for use in the next model of the K2? How long do you think it would
take for them to stop laughing...

See? You're saying tubes are electro-politically incorrect.

---

btw, the all-time DX record for a radio built by humans is held by a
tube transmitter.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Scott wrote:

Except the Russians. They were still using tube gear in their military
back in the mid 80s. Not susecptible to EMP (electromagnetic pulse)
from a nuke going off.

I forgot about EMP. And I guess that is a quite valid reason for using
tubes in emergency gear. I do remember that EMP was one of the things
discussed for ham emergency gear.

I'm sure that our (US) military protects for EMP, but I doubt it is by
using tube equipment. Likely something more modern. Fancy Shielding?
Perhaps you know the technology currently used?

"AJ Lake" wrote in message
...
Scott wrote:

Except the Russians. They were still using tube gear in their military
back in the mid 80s. Not susecptible to EMP (electromagnetic pulse)
from a nuke going off.

I forgot about EMP. And I guess that is a quite valid reason for using
tubes in emergency gear. I do remember that EMP was one of the things
discussed for ham emergency gear.

I'm sure that our (US) military protects for EMP, but I doubt it is by
using tube equipment. Likely something more modern. Fancy Shielding?
Perhaps you know the technology currently used?

In Desert Storm they were breaking out KWM-2a to replace radios that were
getting nailed from static in the blowing sand.

AJ Lake wrote:

I'm sure that our (US) military protects for EMP

No it doesn't and never has. The Russian plans for preemptive strikes
included high air bursts over major centres of population to cripple
communications. The Soviets /knew/ that the USA was entirely vulnerable to
EMP, and still is.

Perhaps you know the technology currently used?

Yes. We Brits have military communications equipment to deal with EMP -
it's /all/ valve based. Trying to protect semiconductor gear against EMP
is like trying to protect telephone equipment against lightning - entirely
futile!

Bob

AJ Lake wrote:
..

I'm sure that our (US) military protects for EMP, but I doubt it is by
using tube equipment. Likely something more modern. Fancy Shielding?
Perhaps you know the technology currently used?

Nope, no idea. When I was in the Air Force working on aircraft comm
radio equipment, "they" told us if a nuke went off, our radios would
most likely not work. I don't think fancy shielding would work since
all radios I know of have a hole in the shield where RF and EMP can
enter. It used to be called the antenna port. Not sure what they call
it in "modern" equipment...

When I was still in the USAF, we had our EC-135 and RC-135 aircraft that
still had some tube type radios on at least HF and UHF bands, ie 618-T
and ARC-34...but...they also had modern radios such as the ARC-190 HF
set. I loved the ARC-190 (Collins). It was a nice radio to use and
work on. Still see them installed on at least National Guard KC-135s
when I get aboard at airshows.

Scott wrote:

AJ Lake wrote:
.

I'm sure that our (US) military protects for EMP, but I doubt it is by
using tube equipment. Likely something more modern. Fancy Shielding?
Perhaps you know the technology currently used?

Nope, no idea. When I was in the Air Force working on aircraft comm
radio equipment, "they" told us if a nuke went off, our radios would
most likely not work. I don't think fancy shielding would work since
all radios I know of have a hole in the shield where RF and EMP can
enter. It used to be called the antenna port. Not sure what they call
it in "modern" equipment...

I did some work on simulated EMP back in the 80's (when I was wearing a
different engineering hat), and we found that there's /nothing/ that will
protect semiconductor equipment against it.

We used very high voltage discharges (at the City University High Voltage
Lab in London), and we destroyed all sorts of gear! The original plan was
to examine resilience against lightning discharges, but later on the
experiments were expanded to cover EMP. We found that "hollow-state" gear
could withstand quite a lot of abuse and continue to work, whereas the
solid-state equipment would die at the slightest provocation. This
had /very/ serious ramifications for the "defence industry".

I've recently found another application that's best serviced with valves
("tubes" - U.S.). A friend of mine is responsible for the maintenance of a
number or airport NDB units. The ones they had were solid state, and would
quite regularly get fried by static or lightning. Over the last few days
we've begun the design of a valve replacement for the "hot" end of these
things. It's not difficult to get a few tens of Watts at MF with valves!

Bob

Scott wrote:

AJ Lake wrote:
.

I'm sure that our (US) military protects for EMP, but I doubt it is by
using tube equipment. Likely something more modern. Fancy Shielding?
Perhaps you know the technology currently used?

Nope, no idea. When I was in the Air Force working on aircraft comm
radio equipment, "they" told us if a nuke went off, our radios would
most likely not work.

What was the plan with no radios operational?
Please tell me there was a plan...

I don't think fancy shielding would work since
all radios I know of have a hole in the shield where RF and EMP can
enter. It used to be called the antenna port. Not sure what they call
it in "modern" equipment...

I suppose any modern EMP US military countermeasures would be
classified. Maybe Bob in London can tell us...

When I was still in the USAF, we had our EC-135 and RC-135 aircraft that
still had some tube type radios on at least HF and UHF bands, ie 618-T
and ARC-34...but...they also had modern radios such as the ARC-190 HF
set.

I was working in the manufacturing of new tube type military equipment
(such as the APS 94 side looking radar) into the late 60s. I left the
electronics industry in 68 for an unrelated field and never kept up on
military gear after that.

I loved the ARC-190 (Collins). It was a nice radio to use and
work on. Still see them installed on at least National Guard KC-135s
when I get aboard at airshows.

Collins was always nice gear, either in or out of a military skin.