01-15-2018, 11:57 PM
Modular Grid Social Feed -- Metasonix
Even the Mighty RCA lied occasionally. From John Atwood:
"Here is an interesting article in the April 1928 issue of QST that is primarily an effort to unravel conflicting statements from RCA regarding the use of the '50 tube in ham transmitters. The controversy starts with an RCA press release saying: "When used as a transmitting tube the UX-250 is rated at 25 watts as against the 7.5 watt rating of the UX-210." The plate structure of the '50 is larger than that of the '10 and the '50's bulb is bigger (S-21 vs S-17), so an increased power rating is expected, but not over three times the power! When the ARRL contacted RCA, RCA down-played the use of a '50 as an oscillator or transmitting tube. The general conclusion is that the '50 works fine in transmitters, but with a 15 watt plate rating."
http://www.one-electron.com/QST-Archive/QST-April1928-The UX-250-CX-350 Tube.pdf
(Posted on 2018-01-15 03:33:11 by Metasonix)
https://www.modulargrid.net/e/socialtope/channels/index
Even the Mighty RCA lied occasionally. From John Atwood:
"Here is an interesting article in the April 1928 issue of QST that is primarily an effort to unravel conflicting statements from RCA regarding the use of the '50 tube in ham transmitters. The controversy starts with an RCA press release saying: "When used as a transmitting tube the UX-250 is rated at 25 watts as against the 7.5 watt rating of the UX-210." The plate structure of the '50 is larger than that of the '10 and the '50's bulb is bigger (S-21 vs S-17), so an increased power rating is expected, but not over three times the power! When the ARRL contacted RCA, RCA down-played the use of a '50 as an oscillator or transmitting tube. The general conclusion is that the '50 works fine in transmitters, but with a 15 watt plate rating."
http://www.one-electron.com/QST-Archive/QST-April1928-The UX-250-CX-350 Tube.pdf
(Posted on 2018-01-15 03:33:11 by Metasonix)
https://www.modulargrid.net/e/socialtope/channels/index