[Collins] Looking for information on the Cunningham C201 and C203tubes

[Carl]

Very interesting reading Jerry and thanks. It confirms my earlier 
statements.

I see that the 300B is rated at "in excess" of 200W which means they were 
pushing the 203A's.

In the 45A the C-830B is an Amperex 830 or 830B and the C-211D is a UE 211D. 
Both were later made by others.

In the 202A the C-200 is obviously a HF-200 or a UE HV-18.  I also note that 
the 202A also offered the new Eimac companies 150T as an option for the 
C-200.

The 600A continues the Amperex relationship with the C100 which was a rather 
unique tube with a C100D also used. Both apparently can be replaced with a 
2A5 for circuit functionality. The HF200 or HF-300 were the output tubes.

After WW2 the 300G switched from Amperex to the RCA "developed" 810 which is 
the same as a HF-200. Was this because thousands of 810's wound up surplus 
in 1945? I used a pair as modulators for surplus 250TH's when I was still in 
HS in 57; and found NIB surplus ones a few years ago for a current modulator 
for HK-354's.

Carl
KM1H


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dr. Gerald N. Johnson" <geraldj at weather.net>
To: "Carl" <km1h at jeremy.mv.com>
Cc: <collins at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 2:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Collins] Looking for information on the Cunningham C201 and 
C203tubes


> There is some real original history at:
> http://www.collinsradio.org/archives/Collins_Radio_Signals_From_1930s.aspx
> Original documents from the time, no garbled memories. Makes for 
> interesting reading about this topic. Several featured the 300 family of 
> radios in ham service.
>
> On 9/2/2010 1:12 PM, Carl wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/2/2010 8:11 AM, Carl wrote:
>>>> I seriously doubt if Collins used the RCA 203A for long, if at all, as
>>>> it was a 1923 introduced tube of fairly low reliability and obsolete by
>>>> the time Collins got into the BC market. The 203A was simply a higher 
>>>> mu
>>>> 211 and was rated at 100W output in Class C AM service (1934 RCA
>>>> Transmitting Tube Manual) so a pair wouldnt make the 250W of the 
>>>> Collins
>>>> TX.
>>> The 211 went on to be the VT4C of BC191 and BC375 fame (or
>> infamy).
>>
>>
>> And one of the audiophools most sought after tubes. I understand the
>> Chinese version is quite good.
>> My earliest vintage rig is PP VT4C's in a classic yooper circuit except
>> it doesnt yoop. Its on 80M, feeds coax fed antennas and runs regulated
>> DC on filaments and B+. I should have DXCC with it soon. Then I'll
>> rebuild to a multistage 160-20M rig with PP VT4C modulators.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The 1933 Collins Signal articles show tubes like the 203A while the
>>> 1935 Collins Signal articles show common receiving tube numbers, like
>>> 245 or the common 866 rectifier with mostly C prefixed numbers for the
>>> power tubes.
>>
>>
>> In 1933 I would have expected the 203A to be used, serious competition
>> didnt come until a 1-2 years later; I wasnt aware that Collins was into
>> BC rigs that early. Somewhere I have an interesting history on Amperex
>> and it is amazing how many different areas of tube applications they
>> were deeply involved in and also how far back they went.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> There was almost no order to industrial tube numbering back then and
>>>> companies simply used whatever they wanted. So a RCA 203A was quite
>>>> different from a C203, and CE203 (MV rectifier)
>>>>
>>>> If any Collins documentation exists I feel rather certain that Amperex
>>>> would be at the top of the supplier list as they were very active at 
>>>> the
>>>> time and despised RCA. Personally I believe they made better tubes 
>>>> which
>>>> certainly would have attracted Art Collins.
>>>
>>> I don't know what documentation Collins kept in the 30s. I know in the
>>> 60s that every bit of every product had to be covered by a component
>>> specification. Nothing could reach production without a complete set,
>>> preferably from a list of preferred parts. Everything had a part
>>> number down to the least bit of hardware.
>>>
>>> These component specifications described the part, who was acceptable
>>> to make it (like carbon comp resistors excluded IRC), and how to test
>>> it. Samples had to pass test by the components spec department at
>>> intervals to stay in use. A significant fraction of the surplus bought
>>> by McKercher and then by Surplus Sales of Nebraska were parts that had
>>> survived or failed those component qualifications tests, or incoming
>>> inspection.
>>>
>>> In the 60s, I know Art showed a definite dislike of RCA. Someone
>>> proposed using RCA 8122 instead of 4CX350 for 300 or so watt linear
>>> stages and broad band driver stages. Their data sheets show the same
>>> characteristics, but the 8122 cost half the price of a 4CX350 and fit
>>> in a 98 cent socket versis the $10 socket for the Eimac tube.
>>
>>
>> And were they lucky they didnt. The initial NCL-2000 prototype had
>> 4CX350's (its still in existence) and National was convinced to switch
>> to the RCA 8122 which caused them serious financial and reputation harm.
>> RCA's eventual redesign was slow in delivery.
>>
>>
>> < This went
>>> into a working paper which Art dutifully read and responded, saying,
>>> "I've known Bill Eitel since 1936, we'll use Eimac tubes." Could have
>>> been he was soured by rotten performance of the RCA 203A.
>>
>> RCA was years behind in new designs for service up to a 1000W and didnt
>> have a new power tube until the 833 in 1937, the 813 in 1938 and the
>> 811/812 in 39. By that time Eimac, H&K, Amperex, Taylor, Raytheon and
>> others were feeding the demand.
>>
>>
>>
>> I wasn't all
>>> that pleased with the Eimac 4CV100,000C that had great plate
>>> dissipation but the innards of a 4CX35,000 and they were worked to
>>> glowing to get 125KW carrier. We had to melt down many tubes to get
>>> Eimac to make tubes that would actually meet the data sheet claims. I
>>> spent days one time with their graphic tube calculator coming up with
>>> 123 or 124 KW output before figuring in losses. We certainly yanked
>>> their chain wanting new data or better performing tubes, which VOA may
>>> have actually gotten from Machlett.
>>
>>
>> I never got into RF much beyond 10KW but spent awhile with industrial PS
>> in the 100-500KV range, that was interesting!
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Cunningham receiving tubes would not have used the 201 label as that 
>>>> was
>>>> RCA as in UX-201, and UX-201A which became the ubiqitous 01A of battery
>>>> radio fame. The Cunningham version was imprinted C-301A and also
>>>> CX-301A. Other competitors used varying prefixes and numbering for the
>>>> same tube such as 401A, 501A, etc with a lettered prefix somewhat
>>>> indicating the manufacturer, NU, SY, etc
>>>
>>> OK.
>>>>
>>>> Jerry, you still have time to make that trip before the first blizzard.
>>>
>>> Only if I don't get finished moved before that first blizzard.
>>
>> After this summer you are probably waiting for it. Im not thinking
>> beyond Earl for the moment.
>>
>> Carl
>> KM1H
>>
>>>>
>>>>
> 73, Jerry, K0CQ, Technical Adviser to the Collins Radio Association.
>>
>>