[Boatanchors] 6146B

[fkamp at comcast.net]

Glen Zook wrote:
> Many of the older transmitters actually did not have
> any means for neutralization of the 6146 final(s) and
> that definitely adds to the problem.

Now that explains a lot that was confusing me about the B,W 
vs A style of 6146. (sort of).

What was it about the older transmitters that allowed them 
to get by without neutralizing the final.  Was it something 
about the 6146A.  If so, what is it that allows the 6146A to 
run without neutralization and why would anyone want to do 
that and take a chance?

I have used 6146Ws and 6146Bs for years without any trouble. 
  Of course I also use neutralization when using them as an 
amplifier.  Un-neutralized finals are very poor designs and 
unecessary when it is so easy to go with a decent, 
neutralized design.

   If the 6146B
> tubes can be neutralized and if that neutralization
> "holds" then they can safely be used in the older
> transmitter.  Unfortunately, not every transmitter
> "holds" the neutralization.

I dont understand why a 6146B could not be neutralized or 
why the neutralization would not 'hold'.  Sounds like those 
problems are the symptoms of a marginal or inadequate 
amplifier design and maybe poor quality compoments.  Not the 
fault of the 6146B.

> 
> It would have been a lot better if RCA hadn't used the
> same basic nomenclature with the 6146B and if they
> hadn't originally said that the 6146B could replace
> the earlier versions without any problems.
> 

Maybe RCA unrealistically assumed that anyone involved in 
amplifier design would have the sense to develop a decent, 
proper design.


Regards,
Frank Kamp
K5DKZ