"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
In , "Toll Free"
wrote:


"Skipp is here to dance disco again" wrote in
message ...
: Frank Gilliland wrote:
:Actually, the 300A will meet todays spurious emissions ratings.

: No it won't. Not unless it's heavily modified and used with a big
: filter. You need to update yourself on the current specifications.

No it probably wont meet current FCC regs as a commercial or amateur
amplifier FOR SALE AS A NEW/CURRENT MODEL.

Properly operated, it's probably fine for current amateur bands. Same
as
the Dentron, Amp Supply, Galaxy and other vintage sweep tube
amateur amplifiers.



Same as using a Swan, Siltronix, etc. on the bands today.

It met it then, so its legal now, as long as it doesn't cause undue
interference.... Something Frank can't seem to do himself.



What's a "big filter"..? Like most current tube amplifiers, the more
practical output section would be a Pi-L layout. A Pi-L output doesn't
have to be really big.



The last generation 300A amps, and its next generation 350Z amp all used
Pi-L outputs.

Frank doesn't always know what he talks about, though.

I prefer not to talk about things of which I know little, such as
boatbuiding
and biochemistry. RF? I know a hell of a lot more than you, Toll. Say,
what
happened to your 4000+ CBer friends in the greater San Diego area?


:It was, and still is, a good amateur amplifier that takes either 25
watts,
:or 100+ watts of drive.

: It's a TV sweep tube amp, designed and built for people that couldn't
: afford an amp with a tube properly designed for power RF. We've been
: through this before,


Which tubed amplifiers of the mid and early 70s used a "proper tube"?

There were plenty. Try BAMA.

And why is it someone who chose to use a Palomar became:

"people that couldn't
: afford an amp with a tube properly designed for power RF"

Kinda self-explanatory, don'tcha think? I mean, if you didn't have the
money for
a Collins, Gonset, Hammarlund or Johnson, and you were too stupid to build
a
Heathkit, you bought a sweep-tube amp like a Palomar. How do you think
they got
popular? CBers? Nope -- poor hams.

Seems if the amp works, at the level designed, and doesn't cause undue
interferience, then it is a decent amp.... Regardless of the tube(s)
employed.

The 300A does so, and continues to this day.

Not according to the FCC. Doesn't meet specs. And it is just as illegal on
the
CB as any other amp, regardless of whether it was once legal for amateur
service
or not.


How do you claim to know the owner couldn't afford a different amp..?
Many
owners prefered the smaller desktop footprint and the practical power
gain. Best of all, you could run it using a common 15 amp 117vac house
electrical outlet. Larger power amplifiers often require upgraded AC
service into the shack. Made a lot of condo owners choose the smaller
desktop Sweep tube Amplifiers made by various mfgrs... including
the Palomar brand.

How about a cost effective mid size amplifier. Palomar even used that
darn
8950 tube. It along with the common (and current) EL-509/519 and
Maco 2057 tubes are considered Sweep type tubes by convention, but
never
saw a service in TV set. Yet they were/are designed for service in RF
power circuits. Funny how that all works out...


Seems funny how Ameritron was using a design very similiar in the 90s.
Must
be a cost-effective design that worked well, eh?

The Ameritron's weren't type-accepted for use in even in the US amateur
service.
They used the "export only" shield.


BULL****. The Ameritron AL-600 was sold in the US for years and years.
They
stopped building it when the tube dried up, reconfigured it, and called it
the AL-811.




Ameritron only stopped using the tubes when they became NON cost
effective
(read this, supply of NOS tubes dried up).

They realized that the legitimate US market was more cost-effective than
the
other-than-legitimate "export" business. So they began building legitimate
amps.


Again, BULL****. They stopped building them when they couldn't get the
tubes anylonger.

Don't believe me, ask Tom himself. He is a regular on the AMPS forum.


Which where the legitamate amps from the 300A / 350Z days?

"Which where..."? There have been plenty of 'legitimate' amps through the
years.
I can make a very long list of manufacturers that built 'legitimate' amps,
and
most of them never built a 'sweep-tube' amp. But you already knew that
little
(but important) tidbit of info, didn't you?



And how many of those same manufacturers also built a sweep tube based amp
or product?

Whoops. Trolling again, arntcha!


Toll_Free

In , "Toll Free"
wrote:


"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
.. .
In , "Toll Free"
wrote:


"Skipp is here to dance disco again" wrote in
message ...
: Frank Gilliland wrote:
:Actually, the 300A will meet todays spurious emissions ratings.

: No it won't. Not unless it's heavily modified and used with a big
: filter. You need to update yourself on the current specifications.

No it probably wont meet current FCC regs as a commercial or amateur
amplifier FOR SALE AS A NEW/CURRENT MODEL.

Properly operated, it's probably fine for current amateur bands. Same
as
the Dentron, Amp Supply, Galaxy and other vintage sweep tube
amateur amplifiers.



Same as using a Swan, Siltronix, etc. on the bands today.

It met it then, so its legal now, as long as it doesn't cause undue
interference.... Something Frank can't seem to do himself.



What's a "big filter"..? Like most current tube amplifiers, the more
practical output section would be a Pi-L layout. A Pi-L output doesn't
have to be really big.



The last generation 300A amps, and its next generation 350Z amp all used
Pi-L outputs.

Frank doesn't always know what he talks about, though.

I prefer not to talk about things of which I know little, such as
boatbuiding
and biochemistry. RF? I know a hell of a lot more than you, Toll. Say,
what
happened to your 4000+ CBer friends in the greater San Diego area?

Well?


:It was, and still is, a good amateur amplifier that takes either 25
watts,
:or 100+ watts of drive.

: It's a TV sweep tube amp, designed and built for people that couldn't
: afford an amp with a tube properly designed for power RF. We've been
: through this before,


Which tubed amplifiers of the mid and early 70s used a "proper tube"?

There were plenty. Try BAMA.

Even better, look he

http://www.muchstuff.com/xmttube2.htm

And why is it someone who chose to use a Palomar became:

"people that couldn't
: afford an amp with a tube properly designed for power RF"

Kinda self-explanatory, don'tcha think? I mean, if you didn't have the
money for
a Collins, Gonset, Hammarlund or Johnson, and you were too stupid to build
a
Heathkit, you bought a sweep-tube amp like a Palomar. How do you think
they got
popular? CBers? Nope -- poor hams.

Seems if the amp works, at the level designed, and doesn't cause undue
interferience, then it is a decent amp.... Regardless of the tube(s)
employed.

The 300A does so, and continues to this day.

Not according to the FCC. Doesn't meet specs. And it is just as illegal on
the
CB as any other amp, regardless of whether it was once legal for amateur
service
or not.


How do you claim to know the owner couldn't afford a different amp..?
Many
owners prefered the smaller desktop footprint and the practical power
gain. Best of all, you could run it using a common 15 amp 117vac house
electrical outlet. Larger power amplifiers often require upgraded AC
service into the shack. Made a lot of condo owners choose the smaller
desktop Sweep tube Amplifiers made by various mfgrs... including
the Palomar brand.

How about a cost effective mid size amplifier. Palomar even used that
darn
8950 tube. It along with the common (and current) EL-509/519 and
Maco 2057 tubes are considered Sweep type tubes by convention, but
never
saw a service in TV set. Yet they were/are designed for service in RF
power circuits. Funny how that all works out...


Seems funny how Ameritron was using a design very similiar in the 90s.
Must
be a cost-effective design that worked well, eh?

The Ameritron's weren't type-accepted for use in even in the US amateur
service.
They used the "export only" shield.


BULL****. The Ameritron AL-600 was sold in the US for years and years.
They
stopped building it when the tube dried up, reconfigured it, and called it
the AL-811.

You are right, I was thinking of a different company. At least you are paying
attention....

The AL-600? Seems even the Ameritron site doesn't have any information on an
AL-600. I did a couple searches and found out that many people refer to the
ALS-600 as the AL-600, but the ALS is a solid-state amp. So do you have a
reference to this AL-600?

Regardless, take another look at that page I linked above. Look closely at what
type of tubes the Ameritrons used: 3CX1200A7, 8877, 572B, 3CX800A7, 3-500Z, 811,
3-500Z... all tubes designed specifically for RF power. Only ONE of their amps
listed used a sweep tube, the 6LQ6. Care to compare the cost of that amp with
the others? Care to guess why so very, very few of their amps (I could find only
one) were designed for sweep tubes, while all the rest were designed around
tubes intended for RF power? Care to guess why they dropped sweep tubes? Oh,
that's right, because of the cost of the tubes. Right. So they built amps with
more expensive tubes instead. Sure. Ok.

Again, look at that page. Count how many sweep tube amps were made by the
quality manufacturers, like B & W, Collins, Drake, Globe, Gonset, Henry,
Johnson, Kenwood... even the U.S. military? Not even a handful, and none for the
military. Why do you think that is, Toll? And what is the mil-spec you use for
your wattmeter?

Ameritron only stopped using the tubes when they became NON cost
effective
(read this, supply of NOS tubes dried up).

They realized that the legitimate US market was more cost-effective than
the
other-than-legitimate "export" business. So they began building legitimate
amps.


Again, BULL****. They stopped building them when they couldn't get the
tubes anylonger.

Don't believe me, ask Tom himself. He is a regular on the AMPS forum.


Which where the legitamate amps from the 300A / 350Z days?

"Which where..."? There have been plenty of 'legitimate' amps through the
years.
I can make a very long list of manufacturers that built 'legitimate' amps,
and
most of them never built a 'sweep-tube' amp. But you already knew that
little
(but important) tidbit of info, didn't you?



And how many of those same manufacturers also built a sweep tube based amp
or product?

A better question might be how many still build them?

Whoops. Trolling again, arntcha!

Only in the eyes of Hypocrite Landshark.






-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----