Building a new shortwave tube radio
 

On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 11:39:03 +0000, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

It is much more important to know exactly how long and how well your
satellite is going to work than to hope to get longer by using a
technology that might last longer, but will more probably die
unexpectedly when struck by a cosmic ray burst.

Sometimes you can not predict how long a satellite will be used. A
friend of mine worked on a civilian satellite for a defense contractor
and just before the division was sold off, cleaned out any old documents
and files they had on it.

Since the satellite he had worked on was way past its expected life (but
still in use), the contracts had long expired, the work was not
classified and a new improved one was due to be launched in a few days,
he was told to dump it all.

A few days later, the booster exploded on the pad, and the replacement
was destroyed.

The sattelite was kept running for many years, although there were no
documents on what to do or how it was built.

Geoff.

What good is a diagram if the unit is 24,000 miles in the air?

Building a new shortwave tube radio
 

dave wrote:

On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 11:39:03 +0000, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

It is much more important to know exactly how long and how well your
satellite is going to work than to hope to get longer by using a
technology that might last longer, but will more probably die
unexpectedly when struck by a cosmic ray burst.

Sometimes you can not predict how long a satellite will be used. A
friend of mine worked on a civilian satellite for a defense contractor
and just before the division was sold off, cleaned out any old documents
and files they had on it.

Since the satellite he had worked on was way past its expected life (but
still in use), the contracts had long expired, the work was not
classified and a new improved one was due to be launched in a few days,
he was told to dump it all.

A few days later, the booster exploded on the pad, and the replacement
was destroyed.

The sattelite was kept running for many years, although there were no
documents on what to do or how it was built.

Geoff.

What good is a diagram if the unit is 24,000 miles in the air?

It had better *not* be in the air... ;-)

Besides - I saw mention upthread of using the ambient
vacuum with just the tube elements, rather than a typical
evacuated glass (or other material) enclosure...is the
vacuum in geosynchronous orbit really hard enough?
It would seem to me that there are probably plenty of
gas molecules floating around at that height, even if
it would still qualify as a "soft" vacuum. Anybody?

Lord Valve

Building a new shortwave tube radio
 

On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 08:38:28 -0700, Lord Valve
wrote:

dave wrote:

On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 11:39:03 +0000, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

It is much more important to know exactly how long and how well your
satellite is going to work than to hope to get longer by using a
technology that might last longer, but will more probably die
unexpectedly when struck by a cosmic ray burst.

Sometimes you can not predict how long a satellite will be used. A
friend of mine worked on a civilian satellite for a defense contractor
and just before the division was sold off, cleaned out any old documents
and files they had on it.

Since the satellite he had worked on was way past its expected life (but
still in use), the contracts had long expired, the work was not
classified and a new improved one was due to be launched in a few days,
he was told to dump it all.

A few days later, the booster exploded on the pad, and the replacement
was destroyed.

The sattelite was kept running for many years, although there were no
documents on what to do or how it was built.

Geoff.

What good is a diagram if the unit is 24,000 miles in the air?

It had better *not* be in the air... ;-)

Besides - I saw mention upthread of using the ambient
vacuum with just the tube elements, rather than a typical
evacuated glass (or other material) enclosure...is the
vacuum in geosynchronous orbit really hard enough?
It would seem to me that there are probably plenty of
gas molecules floating around at that height, even if
it would still qualify as a "soft" vacuum. Anybody?

Lord Valve



For all sorts of other reasons, standard enclosed tubes are used. Main
reasons are first to contain the electrons so other metalwork doesn't
get involved, and second to maintain the correct physical positioning.
The helix is of very fine tolerance in both pitch and positioning.
Space is certainly hard enough, but the environment around a satellite
is frequently not space, but a diffuse cloud of exhaust gas which
would extinguish a TWT immediately.

d

Building a new shortwave tube radio
 

Don Pearce wrote:

On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 08:38:28 -0700, Lord Valve
wrote:

dave wrote:

On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 11:39:03 +0000, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

It is much more important to know exactly how long and how well your
satellite is going to work than to hope to get longer by using a
technology that might last longer, but will more probably die
unexpectedly when struck by a cosmic ray burst.

Sometimes you can not predict how long a satellite will be used. A
friend of mine worked on a civilian satellite for a defense contractor
and just before the division was sold off, cleaned out any old documents
and files they had on it.

Since the satellite he had worked on was way past its expected life (but
still in use), the contracts had long expired, the work was not
classified and a new improved one was due to be launched in a few days,
he was told to dump it all.

A few days later, the booster exploded on the pad, and the replacement
was destroyed.

The sattelite was kept running for many years, although there were no
documents on what to do or how it was built.

Geoff.

What good is a diagram if the unit is 24,000 miles in the air?

It had better *not* be in the air... ;-)

Besides - I saw mention upthread of using the ambient
vacuum with just the tube elements, rather than a typical
evacuated glass (or other material) enclosure...is the
vacuum in geosynchronous orbit really hard enough?
It would seem to me that there are probably plenty of
gas molecules floating around at that height, even if
it would still qualify as a "soft" vacuum. Anybody?

Lord Valve



For all sorts of other reasons, standard enclosed tubes are used. Main
reasons are first to contain the electrons so other metalwork doesn't
get involved, and second to maintain the correct physical positioning.
The helix is of very fine tolerance in both pitch and positioning.
Space is certainly hard enough, but the environment around a satellite
is frequently not space, but a diffuse cloud of exhaust gas which
would extinguish a TWT immediately.

d

Ah. Good point!

Satellites do indeed need to use propellant of some sort
to keep in position; I didn't think of that at all. And it
would seem that even if the ambient vacuum were
hard enough, conventional construction of the TWT
would be needed to keep contaminants out of it during
the satellite assembly process down on Terra firma.
But I must admit, the idea of using ambient vacuum
tickles my fancy a bit. ;-)

Lord Valve

Building a new shortwave tube radio
 

On 11/13/2011 12:07 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 23:42:22 -0800, John
wrote:

On 11/12/2011 11:12 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 17:24:02 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Nov 12, 2:44 pm, John wrote:
On 11/11/2011 10:10 PM, RHF wrote:

...
-wrt- Faraday Cage :
Old Metal {Steel} Garbage Can with a
tight fitting Lid. -store-holding-
+ The Solid State AM/FM/SW Radio
+ Plenty of Batteries
-or- Re-Chargeable Batteries and a
Solar Charger

-no-tubes-required- ~ RHF
.

Satellites are withstanding these on an almost daily basis, for years,
if not decades ... doesn't seem to be a real problem anymore ...
however, laying hands to that technology might be a bit of a different
story ... as, while one nation might wants its' own satellites hardened,
it certainly doesn't want the enemies ...

Regards,
JS

As far as I know- none of the satellites are using vacuum tubes .
That's the reality .

Dream on. Just about every satellite in the sky uses vacuum tubes. The
TWT (travelling wave tube) is still the way to generate high, reliable
power for space-borne transmitters.

d

They would be fools to attempt to boost the weight and fragility of
vacuum tubes into space, if they have any other alternative ... high
power is easily handled with the modern transistors ... the energy
requirements of the heaters is also another no-go ...

Regards,
JS

Energy requirements are not a problem, and neither is G-loading on
takeoff. You are inventing problems where none need exist. TWTs are
mega-reliable devices with a very predictable life curve.

It is much more important to know exactly how long and how well your
satellite is going to work than to hope to get longer by using a
technology that might last longer, but will more probably die
unexpectedly when struck by a cosmic ray burst.

d

I see more that it is you arguing insanity is in vogue this day ...
whatever ...

Regards,
JS

Building a new shortwave tube radio
 

On 11/13/2011 10:25 AM, Lord Valve wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:

On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 08:38:28 -0700, Lord Valve
wrote:

dave wrote:

On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 11:39:03 +0000, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

It is much more important to know exactly how long and how well your
satellite is going to work than to hope to get longer by using a
technology that might last longer, but will more probably die
unexpectedly when struck by a cosmic ray burst.

Sometimes you can not predict how long a satellite will be used. A
friend of mine worked on a civilian satellite for a defense contractor
and just before the division was sold off, cleaned out any old documents
and files they had on it.

Since the satellite he had worked on was way past its expected life (but
still in use), the contracts had long expired, the work was not
classified and a new improved one was due to be launched in a few days,
he was told to dump it all.

A few days later, the booster exploded on the pad, and the replacement
was destroyed.

The sattelite was kept running for many years, although there were no
documents on what to do or how it was built.

Geoff.

What good is a diagram if the unit is 24,000 miles in the air?

It had better *not* be in the air... ;-)

Besides - I saw mention upthread of using the ambient
vacuum with just the tube elements, rather than a typical
evacuated glass (or other material) enclosure...is the
vacuum in geosynchronous orbit really hard enough?
It would seem to me that there are probably plenty of
gas molecules floating around at that height, even if
it would still qualify as a "soft" vacuum. Anybody?

Lord Valve



For all sorts of other reasons, standard enclosed tubes are used. Main
reasons are first to contain the electrons so other metalwork doesn't
get involved, and second to maintain the correct physical positioning.
The helix is of very fine tolerance in both pitch and positioning.
Space is certainly hard enough, but the environment around a satellite
is frequently not space, but a diffuse cloud of exhaust gas which
would extinguish a TWT immediately.

d

Ah. Good point!

Satellites do indeed need to use propellant of some sort
to keep in position; I didn't think of that at all. And it
would seem that even if the ambient vacuum were
hard enough, conventional construction of the TWT
would be needed to keep contaminants out of it during
the satellite assembly process down on Terra firma.
But I must admit, the idea of using ambient vacuum
tickles my fancy a bit. ;-)

Lord Valve




I don't recall anyone ever claiming there was no enclose on the devices
.... just the reasons for enclosing them the way we do on earth is now
gone ...

Regards,
JS

Building a new shortwave tube radio
 

John Smith wrote:

On 11/13/2011 10:25 AM, Lord Valve wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:

On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 08:38:28 -0700, Lord Valve
wrote:

dave wrote:

On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 11:39:03 +0000, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

It is much more important to know exactly how long and how well your
satellite is going to work than to hope to get longer by using a
technology that might last longer, but will more probably die
unexpectedly when struck by a cosmic ray burst.

Sometimes you can not predict how long a satellite will be used. A
friend of mine worked on a civilian satellite for a defense contractor
and just before the division was sold off, cleaned out any old documents
and files they had on it.

Since the satellite he had worked on was way past its expected life (but
still in use), the contracts had long expired, the work was not
classified and a new improved one was due to be launched in a few days,
he was told to dump it all.

A few days later, the booster exploded on the pad, and the replacement
was destroyed.

The sattelite was kept running for many years, although there were no
documents on what to do or how it was built.

Geoff.

What good is a diagram if the unit is 24,000 miles in the air?

It had better *not* be in the air... ;-)

Besides - I saw mention upthread of using the ambient
vacuum with just the tube elements, rather than a typical
evacuated glass (or other material) enclosure...is the
vacuum in geosynchronous orbit really hard enough?
It would seem to me that there are probably plenty of
gas molecules floating around at that height, even if
it would still qualify as a "soft" vacuum. Anybody?

Lord Valve



For all sorts of other reasons, standard enclosed tubes are used. Main
reasons are first to contain the electrons so other metalwork doesn't
get involved, and second to maintain the correct physical positioning.
The helix is of very fine tolerance in both pitch and positioning.
Space is certainly hard enough, but the environment around a satellite
is frequently not space, but a diffuse cloud of exhaust gas which
would extinguish a TWT immediately.

d

Ah. Good point!

Satellites do indeed need to use propellant of some sort
to keep in position; I didn't think of that at all. And it
would seem that even if the ambient vacuum were
hard enough, conventional construction of the TWT
would be needed to keep contaminants out of it during
the satellite assembly process down on Terra firma.
But I must admit, the idea of using ambient vacuum
tickles my fancy a bit. ;-)

Lord Valve




I don't recall anyone ever claiming there was no enclose on the devices
... just the reasons for enclosing them the way we do on earth is now
gone ...

Regards,
JS

Do you actually read this ****, or have you been into the medicine cabinet?


Lord Valve
shrug

Building a new shortwave tube radio
 

On 11/13/2011 2:19 PM, Lord Valve wrote:
John Smith wrote:

On 11/13/2011 10:25 AM, Lord Valve wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:

On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 08:38:28 -0700, Lord Valve
wrote:

dave wrote:

On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 11:39:03 +0000, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

It is much more important to know exactly how long and how well your
satellite is going to work than to hope to get longer by using a
technology that might last longer, but will more probably die
unexpectedly when struck by a cosmic ray burst.

Sometimes you can not predict how long a satellite will be used. A
friend of mine worked on a civilian satellite for a defense contractor
and just before the division was sold off, cleaned out any old documents
and files they had on it.

Since the satellite he had worked on was way past its expected life (but
still in use), the contracts had long expired, the work was not
classified and a new improved one was due to be launched in a few days,
he was told to dump it all.

A few days later, the booster exploded on the pad, and the replacement
was destroyed.

The sattelite was kept running for many years, although there were no
documents on what to do or how it was built.

Geoff.

What good is a diagram if the unit is 24,000 miles in the air?

It had better *not* be in the air... ;-)

Besides - I saw mention upthread of using the ambient
vacuum with just the tube elements, rather than a typical
evacuated glass (or other material) enclosure...is the
vacuum in geosynchronous orbit really hard enough?
It would seem to me that there are probably plenty of
gas molecules floating around at that height, even if
it would still qualify as a "soft" vacuum. Anybody?

Lord Valve



For all sorts of other reasons, standard enclosed tubes are used. Main
reasons are first to contain the electrons so other metalwork doesn't
get involved, and second to maintain the correct physical positioning.
The helix is of very fine tolerance in both pitch and positioning.
Space is certainly hard enough, but the environment around a satellite
is frequently not space, but a diffuse cloud of exhaust gas which
would extinguish a TWT immediately.

d

Ah. Good point!

Satellites do indeed need to use propellant of some sort
to keep in position; I didn't think of that at all. And it
would seem that even if the ambient vacuum were
hard enough, conventional construction of the TWT
would be needed to keep contaminants out of it during
the satellite assembly process down on Terra firma.
But I must admit, the idea of using ambient vacuum
tickles my fancy a bit. ;-)

Lord Valve




I don't recall anyone ever claiming there was no enclose on the devices
... just the reasons for enclosing them the way we do on earth is now
gone ...

Regards,
JS

Do you actually read this ****, or have you been into the medicine cabinet?


Lord Valve
shrug



I usually don't read imbecilic stuff ... such as yours. But, if I do, I
certainly do not take it seriously ... perhaps you will have better luck
with others.

Regards,
JS

Building a new shortwave tube radio
 

John Smith wrote:

On 11/13/2011 2:19 PM, Lord Valve wrote:
John Smith wrote:

On 11/13/2011 10:25 AM, Lord Valve wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:

On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 08:38:28 -0700, Lord Valve
wrote:

dave wrote:

On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 11:39:03 +0000, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

It is much more important to know exactly how long and how well your
satellite is going to work than to hope to get longer by using a
technology that might last longer, but will more probably die
unexpectedly when struck by a cosmic ray burst.

Sometimes you can not predict how long a satellite will be used. A
friend of mine worked on a civilian satellite for a defense contractor
and just before the division was sold off, cleaned out any old documents
and files they had on it.

Since the satellite he had worked on was way past its expected life (but
still in use), the contracts had long expired, the work was not
classified and a new improved one was due to be launched in a few days,
he was told to dump it all.

A few days later, the booster exploded on the pad, and the replacement
was destroyed.

The sattelite was kept running for many years, although there were no
documents on what to do or how it was built.

Geoff.

What good is a diagram if the unit is 24,000 miles in the air?

It had better *not* be in the air... ;-)

Besides - I saw mention upthread of using the ambient
vacuum with just the tube elements, rather than a typical
evacuated glass (or other material) enclosure...is the
vacuum in geosynchronous orbit really hard enough?
It would seem to me that there are probably plenty of
gas molecules floating around at that height, even if
it would still qualify as a "soft" vacuum. Anybody?

Lord Valve



For all sorts of other reasons, standard enclosed tubes are used. Main
reasons are first to contain the electrons so other metalwork doesn't
get involved, and second to maintain the correct physical positioning.
The helix is of very fine tolerance in both pitch and positioning.
Space is certainly hard enough, but the environment around a satellite
is frequently not space, but a diffuse cloud of exhaust gas which
would extinguish a TWT immediately.

d

Ah. Good point!

Satellites do indeed need to use propellant of some sort
to keep in position; I didn't think of that at all. And it
would seem that even if the ambient vacuum were
hard enough, conventional construction of the TWT
would be needed to keep contaminants out of it during
the satellite assembly process down on Terra firma.
But I must admit, the idea of using ambient vacuum
tickles my fancy a bit. ;-)

Lord Valve




I don't recall anyone ever claiming there was no enclose on the devices
... just the reasons for enclosing them the way we do on earth is now
gone ...

Regards,
JS

Do you actually read this ****, or have you been into the medicine cabinet?


Lord Valve
shrug



I usually don't read imbecilic stuff ... such as yours. But, if I do, I
certainly do not take it seriously ... perhaps you will have better luck
with others.

Regards,
JS

Oh.

So, you're just another garden-variety ****. shrug
Y'all have a Real Nice Day now, y'heah?


Got guns?

Lord Valve
American - so far

Building a new shortwave tube radio
 

On Nov 14, 9:59*am, Lord Valve wrote:
John Smith wrote:
On 11/13/2011 2:19 PM, Lord Valve wrote:
John Smith wrote:

On 11/13/2011 10:25 AM, Lord Valve wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:

On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 08:38:28 -0700, Lord Valve
* wrote:

dave wrote:

On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 11:39:03 +0000, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

It is much more important to know exactly how long and how well your
satellite is going to work than to hope to get longer by using a
technology that might last longer, but will more probably die
unexpectedly when struck by a cosmic ray burst.

Sometimes you can not predict how long a satellite will be used.. A
friend of mine worked on a civilian satellite for a defense contractor
and just before the division was sold off, cleaned out any old documents
and files they had on it.

Since the satellite he had worked on was way past its expected life (but
still in use), the contracts had long expired, the work was not
classified and a new improved one was due to be launched in a few days,
he was told to dump it all.

A few days later, the booster exploded on the pad, and the replacement
was destroyed.

The sattelite was kept running for many years, although there were no
documents on what to do or how it was built.

Geoff.

What good is a diagram if the unit is 24,000 miles in the air?

It had better *not* be in the air... *;-)

Besides - I saw mention upthread of using the ambient
vacuum with just the tube elements, rather than a typical
evacuated glass (or other material) enclosure...is the
vacuum in geosynchronous orbit really hard enough?
It would seem to me that there are probably plenty of
gas molecules floating around at that height, even if
it would still qualify as a "soft" vacuum. *Anybody?

Lord Valve

For all sorts of other reasons, standard enclosed tubes are used. Main
reasons are first to contain the electrons so other metalwork doesn't
get involved, and second to maintain the correct physical positioning.
The helix is of very fine tolerance in both pitch and positioning.
Space is certainly hard enough, but the environment around a satellite
is frequently not space, but a diffuse cloud of exhaust gas which
would extinguish a TWT immediately.

d

Ah. Good point!

Satellites do indeed need to use propellant of some sort
to keep in position; I didn't think of that at all. *And it
would seem that even if the ambient vacuum were
hard enough, conventional construction of the TWT
would be needed to keep contaminants out of it during
the satellite assembly process down on Terra firma.
But I must admit, the idea of using ambient vacuum
tickles my fancy a bit. *;-)

Lord Valve

I don't recall anyone ever claiming there was no enclose on the devices
... just the reasons for enclosing them the way we do on earth is now
gone ...

Regards,
JS

Do you actually read this ****, or have you been into the medicine cabinet?

Lord Valve
shrug

I usually don't read imbecilic stuff ... such as yours. *But, if I do, I
certainly do not take it seriously ... perhaps you will have better luck
with others.

Regards,
JS

Oh.

So, you're just another garden-variety ****. *shrug
Y'all have a Real Nice Day now, y'heah?

Got guns?

Lord Valve
American - so far- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

John Smith confessed once that he sleeps with a side arm under his
pillow!