• You can now help support WorldwideDX when you shop on Amazon at no additional cost to you! Simply follow this Shop on Amazon link first and a portion of any purchase is sent to WorldwideDX to help with site costs.

More of a question then an Idea

ElectronTubesRule

Active Member
Sep 6, 2011
257
18
28
Ok I noticed a lot of older transverters kits and designs fall really short of the modern norm of 100 watt's needed to drive most amateur amplifiers. For instance most transverters for 6 meter are under 50 watt's output in fact a lot of the ones I had seen in the past where at or under 25 watt's of output. So how come no one builds input section with a driver tube that could be switch bypassed when needed. I have read articles from the past where all the big men had dual 811A's driving dual 813's so it is not like the driver tube set up has no place in Ham History. When looking at this hobbies propensity for saving old boat anchor's from the past it really makes a lot of sense.

So how come I have not seen a single modern design or homebrew Amplifer with a driver section for say 6meter band? One or two small low wattage tubes would be insignificant with regards to cost when looking at the price of all the other parts?

The main reason I ask is because it is common to see driver's in amp's black market models aimed at illegal use on 11meter/CB....So I was wondering if it is due mostly to the stigma associated with CB or is it just a lack of perceived need or just too many people with new gear with 100 watts output for anyone to worry about the old rigs and under powered transverter's etc????

In fact I read an article where a guy built a home brew 6 meter amp with Russian GI7b tube and after he was done he commented on how he could not use it with his 6 meter transverter because it only put out 15 watts!!! If this was an option that added very little to the price of an OEM amp would you like to have that feature in the off chance you might need it some day? I would imagine that the 1-2 tubes in that circuit would last better then 50 years if their seals and such remained in tact and they where warmed up once a month since they would get next to zero use by 99% of owner's.If you ever needed it though you would already have that functionality built in. Kind of like a spare tire. I have never needed to use one but I sure like the idea of having that spare in the trunk and properly inflated!!!

Any ways I just wanted to hear what people thought about this? The cheapest way to do this would be to use some kind of sweep tube still in production or some other low cost glass envelope compact tube.
 

One reason is the the FCC requires by law that any amp designed for use below 144 MHz must be designed for a minimum of 50 watts driving power. That takes care of the commercial amps. For homebrew, it is far easier to build something like a 4CX250B type amp that requires very low driving power than to try and make most glass tubes operate on 6m.
 
I forgot all about that rule!!!!! I was thinking from a home brew stand point. That and the fact that so many amps made prior to 1960-1970 had 811A tubes driving 813's. If I remember what I read the 811's could be driven to full output with 1.65 watt's of input.

Kind of silly in light of all the export radio's on the market to require an input drive of 50 watt's minimum. That is the lamest idea I have heard in a while to try and keep those not authorized to use said amp from using it! Kind of explains why the CBer's have those tiny worthless single transistor class C modulator amps. Always wondered what their reason for existing was now I know! LOL Plus it is too easy to defeat any type of swamping circuit.

Well I am glad I am not buying a factory built amp now. I hate the idea of using more power then one needs from the Ma' Edison to drive an AMP when far less is required. Kind of sounds like something to tell the EPA about.....It should be criminal to legislate something as required that increase the carbon footprint of hobbiest when it truly is a solution looking for a problem!

I hate legislation and rules that really do nothing to solve the problem they are trying to solve. Does anyone on this site really think for one minute that having a swamping circuit that requires 50+ watts of input power will stop black market use of amateur type products? It just goes to show that common sense is not at all common!


Thanks for point that glaring obvious lack of thought on my part!!! I knew that too......
 
I can't think of any triode amateur amplifiers that used resistive swamping on the input just to bleed off excessive drive power. In fact one of the very few amps that I recall doing this was the NCL-2000 and that was because it used tetrodes with drive applied to the control grids. This also helps stabilize a high gain tetrode. If it were all about efficiency and reducing the carbon footprint, tubes would be outlawed too. Many amps can waste 50 watts or more just to light the tube filaments. If we all ran class C we could save a couple of hundred watts this way too but it's not something most would want to do.

Typical hi-mu triodes have a power gain between 15 to 20 times the applied drive power. Thoriated tungsten filaments are closer to 15 while oxide coated cathodes produce closer to 20. This means it takes much more then 1.65 watts to drive a 811A to full power in any grounded grid configuration. Tetrodes on the other hand often have power gains between 50 and 100 times the applied drive power depending on the design of the grid input circuit.

Without trying to offend anyone, there are only two reasons why the CB operator usually avoids amateur amps. The increase in build quality is not seen as worth the increase in cost or the 2500 watt input power is less then desired. If the cost of spectral purity combined with a 100% duty cycle means you have to settle on much less power, it gets pretty hard to convince people to avoid stacking multiple low power devices in less then perfect amplifiers to reach their goal.
 
circuit.

Well I am glad I am not buying a factory built amp now. I hate the idea of using more power then one needs from the Ma' Edison to drive an AMP when far less is required. Kind of sounds like something to tell the EPA about.....It should be criminal to legislate something as required that increase the carbon footprint of hobbiest when it truly is a solution looking for a problem!

I hate legislation and rules that really do nothing to solve the problem they are trying to solve. Does anyone on this site really think for one minute that having a swamping circuit that requires 50+ watts of input power will stop black market use of amateur type products? It just goes to show that common sense is not at all common!


Thanks for point that glaring obvious lack of thought on my part!!! I knew that too......


One cow fart will exceed the carbon footprint of a tube amp. :whistle:
 
Perhaps we can run our next field day on cow power? Who wants to work out the details on the connections from the fuel supply to the carburetor on the generator?

You'll have to figure out the filtering process for the methane fuel straight from the supply ie chunks of organic "matter":LOL:
 
50Watts of drive is a requirement for commercially built amplifiers? Since when? I've owned several different amplifiers and none of them had a "dump-n-waste" circuit on their input.
- 'Doc
 
50Watts of drive is a requirement for commercially built amplifiers? Since when? I've owned several different amplifiers and none of them had a "dump-n-waste" circuit on their input.
- 'Doc

What I should have said is no amplifier shall be able to achieve full output with anything less than 50 watts of drive. The FCC limits the gain of an amateur amplifier to no more 15 dB which means that 47.5 watts and nothing less should be able to drive it to full output. That basically means a 50 watt minimum drive requirement for full output.

BTW, most amps don't need a "dump and waste" circuit on their input because they are grounded grid and as such have much higher drive level requirements than grid driven amps.Speaking of grid driven amps, when was the last time you saw a commercially built grid driven amp that had tons of gain?? Now you know why everything is now grounded grid design.

Excerpt from FCC Part 97:

§ 97.317 Standards for certification of external RF power amplifiers.
(a) To receive a grant of certification, the amplifier must:
(1) Satisfy the spurious emission standards of §97.307 (d) or (e) of this part, as applicable, when the amplifier is operated at the lesser
of 1.5 kW PEP or its full output power and when the amplifier is placed in the “standby” or “off” positions while connected to the
transmitter.
(2) Not be capable of amplifying the input RF power (driving signal) by more than 15 dB gain. Gain is defined as the ratio of the input
RF power to the output RF power of the amplifier where both power measurements are expressed in peak envelope power or mean
power.
(3) Exhibit no amplification (0 dB gain) between 26 MHz and 28 MHz.
 
Where are these 811 driving 813 setups found?
The only ones I've seen are 813s plate modulated with 811s which of course isn't an rf linear amp.
 

dxChat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.