My guess is that the cost you would have to charge to recoup the time
and effort you put together in coming up with such a design would end
up making such a set *much* more expensive than just going to a ham
fest, buying a Hammarlund in good shape, and fixing it up. Or even
paying someone else to fix it up.

On Nov 11, 12:04*am, David Barts
wrote:
My guess is that the cost you would have to charge to recoup the time
and effort you put together in coming up with such a design would end
up making such a set *much* more expensive than just going to a ham
fest, buying a Hammarlund in good shape, and fixing it up. Or even
paying someone else to fix it up.

I already have a R-390, two Hammarlunds and a Racal....I wanted to
manufacture something. Or at least think about it.

On 11/11/11 24:15 , wrote:
On Nov 11, 12:04 am, David
wrote:
My guess is that the cost you would have to charge to recoup the time
and effort you put together in coming up with such a design would end
up making such a set *much* more expensive than just going to a ham
fest, buying a Hammarlund in good shape, and fixing it up. Or even
paying someone else to fix it up.

I already have a R-390, two Hammarlunds and a Racal....I wanted to
manufacture something. Or at least think about it.



Certainly worth thinking about.


Maybe worth doing. But consider:


Tubes are getting harder to come buy. Not that they can't be had.
And after an EMP, they're likely to be as available as working SS
devices. But there are inherent issues with Tubes. One is that they
use a LOT of precious energy, that in a survival mode situation is
best conserved for other applications, or longer listening. Another
is that voltages are much higher than those that can be recovered
after or during a crisis with ease. Low voltage, low current devices
are going to be more desirable when energy is in short supply.

But, more importantly, tube receivers aren't necessarily less
prone to damage by EMP than SS receivers. In fact, there is
empirical evidence to suggest that SS receivers can be made to
survive an EMP where a tube receiver will not.

Your best options, then, would include building a reasonably high
performance receiver with readily available common parts, and take
measures, such as a Faraday cage, and effective grounding/input
protection measures, to render your station if not immune, then more
resistant to stray or induced hostile voltages.

Now, you have a practical, and manufacturable, product.

On Nov 11, 8:57*am, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 11/11/11 24:15 , wrote:

On Nov 11, 12:04 am, David
wrote:
My guess is that the cost you would have to charge to recoup the time
and effort you put together in coming up with such a design would end
up making such a set *much* more expensive than just going to a ham
fest, buying a Hammarlund in good shape, and fixing it up. Or even
paying someone else to fix it up.

* I already have a R-390, two Hammarlunds and a Racal....I wanted to
manufacture something. Or at least think about it.

* *Certainly worth thinking about.

* *Maybe worth doing. But consider:

* *Tubes are getting harder to come buy. Not that they can't be had.
And after an EMP, they're likely to be as available as working SS
devices. But there are inherent issues with Tubes. One is that they
use a LOT of precious energy, that in a survival mode situation is
best conserved for other applications, or longer listening. Another
is that voltages are much higher than those that can be recovered
after or during a crisis with ease. Low voltage, low current devices
are going to be more desirable when energy is in short supply.

* *But, more importantly, tube receivers aren't necessarily less
prone to damage by EMP than SS receivers. In fact, there is
empirical evidence to suggest that SS receivers can be made to
survive an EMP where a tube receiver will not.

* *Your best options, then, would include building a reasonably high
performance receiver with readily available common parts, and take
measures, such as a Faraday cage, and effective grounding/input
protection measures, to render your station if not immune, then more
resistant to stray or induced hostile voltages.

* *Now, you have a practical, and manufacturable, product.

-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

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

On Nov 12, 2:44*pm, John Smith 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 .

wrote in message
...


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


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All satellites still use these for output:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling-wave_tube

On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 17:24:02 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Nov 12, 2:44*pm, John Smith 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

On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 17:24:02 -0800, arthrnyork wrote:



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

Almost all of them use TWTAs, a form of vacuum tube, for their final
downlink amplifiers.